Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
etataje

ISKCON (and) Hinduisim

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

Does another iskconite have the answers?

--

 

===

He who sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord, who sees all living entities as His parts and parcels, and who sees the Supreme Lord within everything never hates anything nor any being.

===

 

Nothing wrong w/ Hindu, Vaishnavas in Iskcon, are taught we are living entities, eternal parts and parcels of KRSNA, Not Hindus, there is no comprimize, If you have Initiation from Vaishnava you may have Hindu body, but you are a Vaishnava.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Jai Shree KRishna!

 

I am very disappointed to see brothers n sisters arguing over many topics of hinduism and religion most of it without proper knowledge. If you want to learn something dont mental speculate or argue wasiting time with others. Go to authorities like leanred people and ask them. The best source of knowledge in todays kali-yuga is Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupadas books. I am not saying this to convert anyone, this is truly to help people understand the vedic philosophy.

 

First we should not talk to much about calling each other hindus or this and that. One of the guets put a nice sloka from the Gita that there is only one religion and that is to surrender (Gita 18:66). We should remmebr that we are all eternal servants of God (krishnera nitya dasa). This is said in scriptures. There will never be peace if we keep identifying ourselves with the body and race colour and so on. This is all taught in the Gita. The bad part is that some of you people are really being degraded by talking about all this vedas and scriptures and Vishnu without knowledge. Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam these are VEDIC scriptures. They are not seperate from vedas. Krishna came speically to remind us of these vedic teachings (summarized: mot improtant points). Krishna even says that this knowledge was taught millions of years ago to the Sun God but it was lost in disciplic succession. I do request all of you to read the Gita (Prabhupada says Gita is the abc's of spiritual life). It is best to buy a copy writen by Srila Prabhupada which can be found in Hare Krishna temples, but you can also see it online http://www.asitis.com/.

 

Why am i recommending Srila Prabhupadas? Stop ciritcizing and mental speculation. There are 100s of so called swamis and there are 100's of Gitas which are present today in this world in many languages but the problem is most people give their own mental speculation and philosophies. Sadhu-shastra-guru. These scriptures are well kept in mint condition when it is brought in displic succesion starting from God going down to Prabhupada swami. He always present the vedic scriptures "as it is".

 

Anyways, I used to be hindu and my family and firenda are all hindu. I dont mind calling myself a hindu. But now i usually attend the hare krishna temples and associate there, and very less in the hindu temples even thought i still go to hindu temple because Gods form is also there. According to circumstances and the age we are in and in this present demonaic world and according to what vedas have reccomended for this age, has been all presented nicely by the hk's movement. Th hindus are pracitsing vedic culture and religion but not according to what is needed in todays age. BUt anyways again we should NOT keep seperating ourselves by labeeling each other as hindu and non hindu, just remmrebr your eternal position and goal. People dont understand this word HINDU was given bu the muslims when they attacked mother India, since the aryans lived across the indus river, they refered to them as indus or in other words hindus. Basically those who followed the vedas or sanatan dharma. We should all look at goal of life.

 

Pure ignorance is when people keep saying Krishna is a man. "Althoug I am unborn and my transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentent beings, I still appear in every millineum in My original transcendental form." (Gita 4.6). Yes, Krishna was an avataar of Vishnu comig in His transcendental form. But, if you read vedas carefully and you ask leanred pandits (priests) they will also say to you "Krishna is the supreme personality of Godhead". Krishna is the original name and He has many other names such as Govinda, Narayana, Vishnu, Hari, Paramatma, God, Allah, Father. and so on. Instead of being envious or getting confused. Its just that since there has been over 1000s of years manufacturing of many languages and religions, knowlede is lost. Lord Brahma is the oldest living entity in creation. His one day is = 1000 ages = 4,300,000,000 earth days. (Gita 8.17, also bhagavtam ch.1). He says in his prayers to Krishna in Bramha Samhita: Isvara paramah krishna sac cid ananda vigraha anadir adir govinda sarva karana karanam" Krishna is the supreme lord who is the primeval lord govinda. His bosy is full of knowlegde and bliss. He is the cause of all causes." So who is not going to beleive Lord Brahma who is such an authoritative being, living so many years? Even Lord Shiva (you see his eyes closed) meditates on lord Krishna. I am not making up stuff to convert again not to argue. I am seriously giving you knowledge which is refernced from Prabhupadas books, more specifically the scriptures.

 

I request you all to sit down relaxed and read Prabhupadas books (if not books, websites) and learn the vedic philosophy which is all presented clearly "as it was and is" with many detials. You will find noone else in this world who has been so merciful to translate these ancient eternal knowldge from bharata bhoomi (India) into english with explanations so all humans can benefit. Kknowledge is very important which i noticed many of the people discussing do not have.

 

And about the questions about the hare krishnas and the word hindu, all this stuff i recommend all of you to read letters and articles written by Prabhupada himself refferniong too all of this.

 

The krishna consciousness movement is the genuine vedic way.

http://india.krishna.org/Articles/2000/09/00122.html

Krishna is incarnation of maha vishnu? there is no krishna loka.

http://india.krishna.org/Articles/2000/09/00136.html

 

the originial site is krishna.org

(under the "India" section there is an article about the comparison of hinduism)

Just by going to this site you will learn so much about vedas, Krishna consciousness movement, Gita, India and many otrher spiritual topics

I urge you to go there.

 

Chant Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Ram Hare Ram Ram Ram Hare Hare and BE HAPPY.

Glory to SHRi Krishan Bhagavan!

 

hope this helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

"What EXACTLY is the iskon definition of 'hindu' that they so dispise being a part of?

 

Do other Gaudiya sects and other Vaishnava sects have such a big hissy fit about being called 'hindu'? "

 

Iskcon sure uses the word 'hindu' alot but what is their definition?

 

What does iskcon call the schools that use Vedik literatures to establish their thought? Some call them 'hindu' schools. Does iskon claim to be separate from these vedik schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--if you understand why do not you explain it to me? unity in diversity and so on are not enough, you can give this definition to everything)

 

If you are in a group, and if you think yours is the only way, no matter what I say will not make any difference.

 

Re

(--yes, this is a similarity .. we have some differences and some similarities... i discuss if these similarities make us belong to the same religious or spiritual brand, or way of salvation, way to see the life and so on)

 

My point was not about contents of our discussion but about being in the same forum.

 

 

Re

(--it is not at all a problem.. only i do not think that we belong to the same group, that's all... no problem at all)

 

We never say we belong to same group we say hindu is many path searching for the same truth. So no problem if you accept or not.

 

 

Re

(--so let us not negate differences until we feel them... when we will be realized maybe we will take other decisions.. no problem)

 

I never said to negate the difference, except you don’t like it I tolerate it.

 

 

Re

(--of course you are very right...)

 

I am glad you agree.

 

Re

( indeed it is for me not enough to put opposite schools in the same group.)

 

I mean opposite concepts but same school.

 

 

Re

(I have many things in common with chinese, but ia m not chinese,

Nice to know that, they are easy to distinguish but I really can not tell the difference between japes and Chinese, like I can’t tell the difference between two students who goes to the same uni.

 

Re

(i ahve many things in common with an advaitin, but i have too much things in opposition to make impossible to make a group with him.)

 

Nice to know you have many thing in common with advaitin, only difference is the concept. No one is complaining to sankracharya to rescue the Vedas?

 

Re

( If a people see me and him together and say "you are hindus" this has no meaning and creates a big confusion..)

 

Confusion in whose part? surely not the two of you, an outsider either don’t care and if he/she is interested he/she will find out the difference, are you scared of the choice.

 

Re

( he is more close to a buddhist than to me)

 

I take Buddhist any time even though I do not understand the concept of sunya.

And you say buddha is one of the ten avatars.!

 

Re

(and i am more close to a christian than to him.)

 

that is your choice, I will find great difficulty sitting on the same table with him having dinner.

 

Re

(So if i am not in a group with Christian)

 

that is because you study different books.

In any case christain want accept you.

 

Re

(i am not in a group with advaitins (and i think that they do not want to be grouped with me)

 

Sure your choice, but others do not have any difficulty.

 

Re

(--many thinks that brahman is not the supreme, many thinks that choosing to go to nirguna brahman instead of param brahman is like a spiritual suicide, worst than materialism or atheism)

So let it be their their choice.

--different choice... different names... no problem)

 

 

That is Hindu way, Hindu denotes many group.

 

Re

 

(---so where's the project, the program, the common ground of this university if in a classroom some one teachs the opposite of the other one? there's nothing like that in schools and universities)

 

To realize the truth is the project, study the Vedas is the program. Execute the dharma laid down in the shastra are the common grounds, no one is teaching the opposite but different concepts are there in the books. You don’t want the schools to churn out machines, all thinking the same do you?

 

 

 

Re

 

(different concept will follow until we realize

--there's no need, we are already different.... let us unite if we will find something in common, why unite whimsically? )

 

what is your answer got to do with my statement?

 

 

Re

(Where is the question of uniting different concepts of god?

--if you are speaking of a religion, a way to get salvation, a way to reach the absolute what do you want to unite? wich common principle is needed if not the same concept of god?)

Who is talking of uniting different concept of god? Read my question again, you keep twisting what I am saying.

 

 

Re

(We can have common practice, common laws common scriptures but common understanding?

--this is required... but there's nothing bad if it is not in this way.. we are different and that's enough, no problem in living in peace)

 

Hey that is what we Hindu do

 

 

(Look at what Lord Krishna is saying.

Scarcely one out of thousands of persons strives for perfection of Self-realization. Scarcely any one of the striving, or even the perfected persons, truly understands Me. (7.03)

 

Re

(--no objection.. if you think that no one knows the truth, why do you want to make a group where no one knows why they were grouped and for wich purpose?)

 

There you go again, twisting what is Krishna saying, also context in which I have quoted this verse, if the lord is hard to understand, it will follow from here that there will be different concepts of him/her.

 

 

Re Karma

(--this is how it works, not why)

So tell me.

 

 

((No I am not searching for unity it was there well before Muslim came))

Re

(--i also think that originally there was a unity, but there was also a conceptual unity that did keep people together... and that was all over the world, not only in india.. in this way it is factual and productive to be united, same concept, same name.. sanatana dharma)

 

Vedic, Sanatan Dharma and now known by new name Hindu, how and when it came about no one knows for sure but the different concept was then and it is now also.

 

 

((Fact that Hindu dharma has survived thousand years of occupation is a testimony in itself.))

Re

(--no hindu dharma is not original, hindu is, like other religions, a product of kali yuga, a corruption of the original)

 

let me see what you are saying to my above statement in double brackets, those ancestors of ours who with great sacrifice preserved and kept alive the dharma was all a waste of time because it is not original? Thank you.

 

Re

( sanatana dharma that, in my opinion was vaishnava dharma (i do not claim now to be right, simply i am not ina group who thinks that this opposite conceptions are all together the same dharma and that they were originally existing in satya, treta, dvapara yugas...)

 

Yes opinion, opinions why should I argue with that.

 

 

(.. so if the worsippers of christ are christians, the worshippers of vishnu, shiva, nirguna brahman are vaishnava, shaivites, advaitins... why hindu?

 

Because these are concepts within the same scriptures different interpretation of same supreme Brahman, Hindu is a new name for these followers.

 

Re

( why a name who resembles a nation? why one who loves christ is not a Palestinian)

 

Because Hindu is not a country, Hindusthan is, inhabitants of this land, Bharat Bhumi, is a Hindu.anyone who studies the same scripture is a Hindu, or not your choice.

 

Re

(but a shaivite has to be (h)indian even if he's from poland?national pride is natural as you have said, so it is a crime to lose even one people who would want to worship vishnu, or siva, or ganesh and so on but he does not belong to India)

 

No I never said that, but I see your agenda for an outsider to accept this great dharma which is universal and no hindu will deny this but you want to deny all the Indians who follow it.

 

 

 

Re

(--so let us stop this identification for external things, this is not an advantage for anyone, it creates confusion)

 

One can only identify externally, internally impossible to tell, confusion is not mine.

 

 

Re

(-- It is like you were saying "nothing is real and definite so let us unite on nothing" instead of finding reasons to unite. )

 

Go on twist what I have said or not said. What is there to unite, group or institution can only help you so much at the end of the day ones effort and the mercy of the lord one can go back home.

 

 

 

((I am an individual who follow Hindu way of life))

Re

(--that i think that it does not exist or, if your definitions are right, i do not think that vaishnavism belongs to it(the original subject of the thread)

 

The fact that I am talking to you prove that it exist, even if I am the only one.

You are welcome to think what you like.

 

 

 

Re

(What are the differences to common principals please list them

--for example on what is the neture of the absolute, who is or what is.... the most important thing of a spiritual path)

 

This is not the answer to my question, you stated in your statement “even the common principals there are differences” so state them, not the different concepts that does exists.

 

Re

(--no it means that we disagree on another subject... you see no difference, i see difference... so we do not belong to the same hindu denomination for this reason too)

 

Do you read anything I write? I see difference and I respect that. You also see differences but you don’t like it.

WE say Hindu is not a religion, but a way of life there are many paths, many groups even group within a group, follow your chosen path, hindu is simply a new name for Vedic way of life.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

===

He who sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord, who sees all living entities as His parts and parcels, and who sees the Supreme Lord within everything never hates anything nor any being.

===

 

Very Nice

 

 

Re

(Nothing wrong w/ Hindu, Vaishnavas in Iskcon, are taught we are living entities, eternal parts and parcels of KRSNA, Not Hindus, there is no comprimize, If you have Initiation from Vaishnava you may have Hindu body, but you are a Vaishnava.)

 

So Hindu did not have this concept before Iskcon?

and ainitiation from Hindu can not be Vaishnava?

What is a Hindu body?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

there is nothing called hinduism

 

the pinnacle of vedic knoweldge is Upanisad which is called vedanta.

 

Vedanta sutra is systematic presentation of teachings enshrined in upanisad mantra.

 

Gita is essence of upnaisad spoken by Lord Krishna.

 

these form the core of Vedic philosophy and deal with highest aim of vedic dharma namely moksha.

 

However relying on interpretations of cryptic brahma sutra different interpretations of VS have arised in form of different school of thoughts. This is what distinguishes each school from other. So iskcon just belongs to one the vaishnava school preaching achintya bheda abheda philisophy.

 

there are 5 vaishnava school and 1 advaita Sankara school

 

Srikantha has preached Saivism based on brahma sutra. his is another school of vedanta.

 

so understand before you guys use the word hinduism and then you shall know if there is difference between hinduism and any of these schools of vedanta.

 

get neo vedanta . out of your brain and try to think rationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Person whos mother is born in India.

 

etc.

 

thats the trouble w/ ethinic Origin, its always doubtfull what your actually are, if your Hindu living in Uk, who used to live is Usa, and now living in Canada, what does that make you.

 

This is material designation, we all here follow Vedas, which propounds we are living entities.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

If you are in a group, and if you think yours is the only way, no matter what I say will not make any difference.

--no, it is not honest, i do not judge you because you think different by me.. simply i am not convinced

 

We never say we belong to same group we say hindu is many path searching for the same truth.

--from the beginning i context that these paths are searching the same truth... these truths are different and sometime oppposite

 

I never said to negate the difference, except you don’t like it I tolerate it.

--i tolerate differences, at the point that i have no problems if we are not under the same denomination... many differences, many denomination... everyone's happy

 

I mean opposite concepts but same school.

--a school when are taught opposite concepts are your invention, i do not accept it, there's no need, it creates confusion and it does not increase peace and tolerance

 

Nice to know you have many thing in common with advaitin, only difference is the concept.

--and we are speaking of concepts, not of rasagullas and chapatis

 

( If a people see me and him together and say "you are hindus" this has no meaning and creates a big confusion..)

Confusion in whose part?

--confusion when one's promoting vaishnavism if one's interested to promote vaishnavism and not promote advaitism or shaivism (even not being against if another likes them or promotes them)... so there's no need to bother newcomers with the need to discover wich sect of hinduism he has before.. vaishnavism and that's all

 

And you say buddha is one of the ten avatars.!

--of course, buddhism has an important function because some people need it to advance spiritually, but i am not buddhist or identified with buddhism (don't you agree that buddah is an avatar?)

 

(and i am more close to a christian than to him.)

that is your choice, I will find great difficulty sitting on the same table with him having dinner.

--me too... but we are speaking of philosophy, and you have understood surely the meaning of this example. If you try to create mistakes it seems that you are not interested in talking but you only enjoy quarrelling

 

(--many thinks that brahman is not the supreme, many thinks that choosing to go to nirguna brahman instead of param brahman is like a spiritual suicide, worst than materialism or atheism)

So let it be their their choice.

--different choice... different names... no problem)

That is Hindu way, Hindu denotes many group.

--and i do not accept any way if the reasons are not explained... "hindu=accepting many groups" means nothing

 

To realize the truth is the project, study

--the so called hinduist do not have all the same concept of truths

 

the Vedas is the program.

---opposite interpretations

 

Execute the dharma laid down in the shastra are the common grounds,

---opposite concepts of dharma

 

no one is teaching the opposite but different concepts are there in the books.

---not true, in my opinion many follows wrong concepts caused by wrong interpretation of books and other groups think the same of me... so nothing in common

 

You don’t want the schools to churn out machines, all thinking the same do you?

---there's difference from wrong interpretation and variety inside the same path or school. There's some different ways to cook gulabjamuns, but they have to be gulabjamuns not pakoras

 

(different concept will follow until we realize

--there's no need, we are already different.... let us unite if we will find something in common, why unite whimsically? )

what is your answer got to do with my statement?

--that if you are saying that we fill find unity when we will realize, let us wait realization, why to do things blindly?

 

Who is talking of uniting different concept of god?

--me.... a religious denomination has to follow the same concept of god.. otherwise for me there's no need to give the same name to people who thinks to god in opposite ways

 

if the lord is hard to understand, it will follow from here that there will be different concepts of him/her.

--so let us remain different... concepts are there and reunite different kind of people this is a fact, if your opinion is that it is not possible to have an idea of god, why we have to be reunited? on wich basis?

(i could accept the idea of hinduism if you show me a common ground, if your idea is that : "everything is vague and undefined so why not unite?" i am going in the opposite direction

 

(--this is how it works, not why)

So tell me.

--i am speaking of the reason we fall in karma law, every group has a different explanation

 

Vedic, Sanatan Dharma and now known by new name Hindu, how and when it came about no one knows for sure but the different concept was then and it is now also.

--what i have learned explains very well these facts and the fact that some concepts that you put together in hinduism in these times were not considered sanatana, neither dharma.... so there's another difference from me and you... and as i have said, your attempt to demonstrate that all is vague and undetermined does not convince me to join hinduism... if we do not know the reasons, why unite?

 

in my opinion was vaishnava dharma (i do not claim now to be right, simply i am not ina group who thinks that this opposite conceptions are all together the same dharma and that they were originally existing in satya, treta, dvapara yugas...)

Yes opinion, opinions why should I argue with that.

---so do not argue, no problem, my interest was only to say that there's difference in understanding sanatana dharma, not to promote my own idea

 

Because these are concepts within the same scriptures different interpretation of same supreme Brahman, Hindu is a new name for these followers.

--and there's another difference, a vaishnava does not think that brahman is the supreme, but vishnu is the supreme... so if you think of hinduism of the religion of the nirguna brahman taken as supreme, many do not agree and do not join

 

but I see your agenda for an outsider to accept this great dharma which is universal and no hindu will deny this but you want to deny all the Indians who follow it.

--this is your opinion, in mine i am emancipating indians from the concept of following a religion who belongs only to india. A christan and a muslim is convinced to be the follower of an universal religion.... why not the so called hindus?

 

group or institution can only help you so much at the end of the day ones effort and the mercy of the lord one can go back home.

---so why this effort to create the group "hinduism"?

 

This is not the answer to my question, you stated in your statement “even the common principals there are differences” so state them, not the different concepts that does exists

--maybe i have lost the connection with the original subject of your objection, if you want, please, re-explain all the fact.. thanks

 

I see difference and I respect that. You also see differences but you don’t like it.

--no.. the opposite, i have so respect of the differences that i do not care to annihilate them in an artificial unity... simply i do not need to be in a group with you if i don't know why. Then, on a personal plane, i am your brother, friend, i can give help and so on. Different means enemy only for materialists

 

hindu is simply a new name for Vedic way of life.

--but many interprete this concept of "vedic way of life" in opposite ways... so neither this is a common concept, you can exchange it with religion, dharma, style, way of thinking, behaviour, philosophy but the result is the same.... no common ground, only that some religions are mainly practiced in a land called india

 

and ainitiation from Hindu can not be Vaishnava?

--if this (h)ind(u)ian, italian, french, american, russian, chinese is a pure vaishnava he can obviously initiate

 

What is a Hindu body?

--being, in many's opinion, only a material, bodily designation.. hindu body is the body of one born in a so called hindu family... if the family were french the body were french

 

soul is vaishnava, lover of vishnu (or in other's opinion lover of shiva, one with nirgun brahman and so on).. not hindu

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simple:

 

in a body resides a soul

that if lives or intends to live

by the authtority of the vedas (gita),

then it is called a hindu person.

 

it does not matter who has given brith to that body.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Jai Shree Krishna!

It seems to me as if you did read my previous response. You are stll worried about what others refer to hindus as and you use this "hissy fit" word. whay are you doing this? You are just having doubts and mental speculating oh they are sayin this and that.

 

I am just trying to explain nicely to you. No one has hissy fits. In prabhupadas articles or when you talk to iskcon devotees when they refer to not being hindu you have to understand that they are not being disturbed. All devotees are trying to do is just get it clear to people that it is not the "so-called" hindu religion, so people atleast know its not some sect or cult of hinduism. It is a society to preach love of Bhagavan. They are not disturbed, you are just feeling that.

You sould remmebr there is actually no such word of hindu. Plus the most important thing is that we should remmebr we are all atmas and that we should follow Gods teachings in scriptures, chant and be happy. I request you to read below.

 

Here is an article by SRila Prabhupada Swamiji.

 

Krsna Consciousness: Hindu Cult or Divine Culture?

When attempting to place the Krsna consciousness movement within a convenient historical-cultural context, many people identify the movement with Hinduism. But this is misleading. Srila Prabhupada disavows connection with the pantheism, polytheism, and caste consciousness that pervades modern Hinduism.

Although Krsna consciousness and modern Hinduism share a common historical root - India's ancient Vedic culture - Hinduilsm has become, along with the other "great religions," a sectarian establishment, whereas Krsna consciousness is universal and transcends relative, sectarian designations.

 

There is a misconception that the Krsna consciousness movement represents the Hindu religion. In fact, however, Krsna consciousness is in no way a faith or religion that seeks to defeat other faiths or religions. Rather, it is an essential cultural movement for the entire human society and does not consider any particular sectarian faith. This cultural movement is especially meant to educate people in how they can love God.

 

Sometimes Indians both inside and outside of India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not. One will not find the word Hindu in the Bhagavad-gita. Indeed, there is no such word as Hindu in the entire Vedic literature. This word has been introduced by the Muslims from provinces next to India, such as Afghanistan, Baluchistan, and Persia. There is a river called Sindhu bordering the north western provinces of India, and since the Muslims there could not pronounce Sindhu properly, they instead called the river Hindu, and the inhabitants of this tract of land they called Hindus. In India, according to the Vedic language, the Europeans are called mlecchas or yavanas. Similarly, Hindu is a name given by the Muslims.

 

India's actual culture is described in the Bhagavad-gita, where it is stated that according to the different qualities or modes of nature there are different types of men, who are generally classified into four social orders and four spiritual orders. This system of social and spiritual division is known as varnasrama-dharma. The four varnas, or social orders, are brahmana, ksatria, vaisya. and sudra. The four asramas, or spiritual orders, are brahmacarya, grhastha, vanaprastha, and sannyasa. The varnasrama system is described in the Vedic scriptures known as the Puranas. The goal of this institution of Vedic culture is to educate every man for advancement in knowledge of Krsna, or God. That is the entire Vedic program.

 

When Lord Caitanya talked with the great devotee Ramananda Raya, the Lord asked him, "What is the basic principle of human life?" Ramananda Raya answered that human civilization begins when varnasrama-dharma is accepted. Before coming to the standard of varnasrama-dharma there is no question of human civilization. Therefore, the Krsna consciousness movement is trying to establish this right system of human civilization, which is known as Krsna consciousness, or daiva-varnasrama - divine culture.

 

In India, the varnasrama system has now been taken in a perverted way, and thus a man born in the family of a brahmana (the highest social order) claims that he should be accepted as a brahmana. But this claim is not accepted by the sastra (scripture). One's forefather may have been a brahmana according to gotra, or the family hereditary order, but real varnasrama-dharma is based on the factual quality one has attained, regardless of birth or heredity. Therefore, we are not preaching the present-day system of the Hindus, especially those who are under the influence of Sankaracarya, for Sankaracarya taught that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and thus he indirectly denied the existence of God.

 

Sankaracarya's mission was special; he appeared to reestablish the Vedic influence after the influence of Buddhism. Because Buddhism was patronized by Emperor Asoka, twenty-six hundred years ago the Buddhist religion practically pervaded all of India. According to the Vedic literature, Buddha was an incarnation of Krsna who had a special power and who appeared for a special purpose. His system of thought, or faith, was accepted widely, but Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas. While Buddhism was spreading, the Vedic culture was stopped both in Indis and in other places. Therefore, since Sankaracarya's only aim was to drive away Buddha's system of philosophy, he introduced a system called Mayavada.

 

Strictly speaking, Mayavada philosophy is atheism, for it is a process in which one imagines that there is God. This Mayavada system of philosophy has been existing since time immemorial. The present Indian system of religion or culture is based on the Mayavada philosophy of Sankaracarya, which is a compromise with Buddhist philosophy. According to Mayavada philosophy there actually is no God, or if God exists, He is impersonal and all-pervading and can therefore be imagined in any form. This conclusion is not in accord with the Vedic literature. That literature names many demigods, who are worshiped for different purposes, but in every case the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, Visnu, is accepted as the supreme controller. That is real Vedic culture.

 

The philosophy of Krsna consciousness does not deny the existence of God and the demigods, but Mayavada philosophy denies both; it maintains that neither the demigods nor God exists. For the Mayavadis, ultimately all is zero. They say that one may imagine any authority - whether Visnu, Durga, Lord Siva, or the sun-god - because these are the demigods generally worshiped in society. But the Mayavada philosophy does not in fact accept the existence of any of them. The Mayavadis say that because one cannot concentrate one's mind on the impersonal Brahman, one may imagine any of these forms. This is a new system, called pancopasana. It was introduced by Sankaracarya, but the Bhagavad-gita does not teach any such doctrines, and therefore they are not authoritative.

 

The Bhagavad-gita accepts the existence of the demigods. The demigods are described in the Vedas, and one cannot deny their existence, but they are not to be understood or worshiped according to the way of Sankaracarya. The worship of demigods is rejected in the Bhagavad-gita. The Gita (7.20) clearly states:

 

kamals tais tair hrta jnanah

prapadyante 'nya-devatah

tam tam niamam asthaya

prakrtya niatah svaya

 

"Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." Furthermore, in the Bhagavad-gita (2.44), Lord Krsna states:

 

bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam

tayapahrta-cetasam

vyavasayatmika buddhih

samadhau na vidhiyate

 

"In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service does not take place." Those who are pursuing the various demigods have been described as hrta jnanah, which means "those who have lost their sense." That is also further explained in the Bhagavad-gita (7.23):

 

antavat tu phalam tesam

tad bha vaty aipa-medhasam

devan deva-yajo yanti

mad-bhakta yanti mam api

 

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees reach My supreme abode." The rewards given by the demigods are temporary, because any material facility must act in connection with the temporary body. Whatever material facilities one gets, whether by modern scientific methods or by deriving benedictions from the demigods, will be finished with the body. But spiritual advancement will never be finished.

 

People should not think that we are preaching a sectarian religion. No. We are simply preaching how to love God. There are many theories about the existence of God. The atheist, for example, will never believe in God. Atheists like Professor Jacques Monod, who won the Nobel prize, declare that everything is chance (a theory already put forward long ago by atheistic philosophers of India such as Carvaka). Then other philosophies, such as the karma-mimamsa philosophy, accept that if one goes on doing his work nicely and honestly, automatically the result will come, without need for one to refer to God. For evidence, the proponents of such theories cite the argument that if one is diseased with an infection and takes medicine to counteract it, the disease will be neutralized. But our argument in this connection is that even if one gives a man the best medicine, he still may die. The results are not always predictable. Therefore, there is a higher authority, daiva-netrena, a supreme director. Otherwise, how is it that the son of a rich and pious man becomes a hippie in the street or that a man who works very hard and becomes rich is told by his doctor, "Now you may not eat any food, but only barley water"?

 

The karma-mimamsa theory holds that the world is going on without the supreme direction of God. Such philosophies say that everything takes place by lust (kama-haitukam). By lust a man becomes attracted to a woman, and by chance there is sex, and the woman becomes pregnant. There is actually no plan to make the woman pregnant, but by a natural sequence when a man and a woman unite, a result is produced. The atheistic theory, which is described in the Sixteenth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita as asuric, or demoniac, is that actually everything is going on in this way, because of chance and resulting from natural attraction. This demoniac theory supports the idea that if one wants to avoid children, he may use a contraceptive method.

 

Actually, however, there is a great plan for everything - the Vedic plan. The Vedic literature gives directions regarding how men and women should unite, how they should beget children, and what the purpose of sex life is. Krsna says in the Bhagavad-gita that sex life sanctioned by the Vedic order, or sex life under the direction of the Vedic rules and regulations, is bona fide and is acceptable to Him. But chance sex life is not acceptable. If by chance one is sexually attracted and there are children, they are called varna-sankara, unwanted population. That is the way of the lower animals; it is not acceptable for humans. For humans, there is a plan. We cannot accept the theory that there is no plan for human life or that everything is born of chance and material necessity.

 

Sankaracarya's theory that there is no God and that one can go on with his work and imagine God in any form just to keep peace and tranquillity in society is also more or less based on this idea of chance and necessity. Our way, however, which is completely different, is based on authority. It is this divine varnasrama-dharma that Krsna recommends, not the caste system as it is understood today. This modern caste system is now condemned in India also, and it should be condemned, for the classification of different types of men according to birth is not the Vedic or divine caste system.

 

There are many classes of men in society - some men are engineers, some are medical practitioners, some are chemists, tradesmen, businessmen, and so on. These varieties of classes are not to be determined by birth, however, but by quality. No such thing as the caste-by-birth system is sanctioned by the Vedic literature, nor do we accept it. We have nothing to do with the caste system, which is also at present being rejected by the public in India. Rather, we give everyone the chance to become a brahmana and thus attain the highest status of life.

 

Because at the present moment there is a scarcity of brahmanas, spiritual guides, and ksatrias, administrative men, and because the entire world is being ruled by sudras, or men of the manual laborer class, there are many discrepancies in society. It is to mitigate all these discrepancies that we have taken to this Krsna consciousness movement. If the brahmana class is actually reestablished, the other orders of social well-being will automatically follow, just as when the brain is perfectly in order, the other parts of the body, such as the arms, the belly, and the legs, all act very nicely.

 

The ultimate goal of this movement is to educate people in how to love God. Caitanya Mahaprabhu approves the conclusion that the highest perfection of human life is to learn how to love God. The Krsna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion. No Christian gentleman will be interested in changing his faith from Christian to Hindu. Similarly, no Hindu gentleman of culture will be ready to change to the Christian faith. Such changing is for men who have no particular social status. But everyone will be interested in understanding the philosophy and science of God and taking it seriously. One should clearly understand that the Krsna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion. We are giving a spiritual culture that can solve all the problems of life, and therefore it is being accepted all over the world.

 

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JaiGanesh

 

Re

(Person whos mother is born in India.)

 

Very illuminative

 

Why my parents had bothered to instil all those good values of following the Hindu dharma when all they had to do was to say son you are this body!

 

 

Re

(thats the trouble w/ ethinic Origin, its always doubtfull what your actually are,)

 

 

The doubts are of your own creation.

 

Re

(if your Hindu living in Uk, who used to live is Usa, and now living in Canada, what does that make you.)

 

Does not change anything, if you are a hindu you will be following your dharma, based on Vedic litreature.

 

 

Re

(This is material designation, we all here follow Vedas, which propounds we are living entities.)

 

It will be hard to separate the material designation, even a group or a insitution is a material designation.

atatho bramhJinasa that is what Vedas ask of living entities.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

 

 

 

 

Re

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jai Ganesh Jai Maa Sarasvati

 

Re

(--no, it is not honest, i do not judge you because you think different by me.. simply i am not convinced

--from the beginning i context that these paths are searching the same truth... these truths are different and sometime oppposite

--i tolerate differences, at the point that i have no problems if we are not under the same denomination... many differences, many denomination... everyone's happy

--a school when are taught opposite concepts are your invention, i do not accept it, there's no need, it creates confusion and it does not increase peace and tolerance

--confusion when one's promoting vaishnavism if one's interested to promote vaishnavism and not promote advaitism or shaivism (even not being against if another likes them or promotes them)... so there's no need to bother newcomers with the need to discover wich sect of hinduism he has before.. vaishnavism and that's all)

 

 

 

 

 

Here I am defending Hindu dharma an age old tradition based on teaching of Vedas and related shastras I am no expert in any one of them nor am I gifted and articulated in English language, my thought patterns happens in gujrati and by the time I translate it the meaning some times escapes me, so if I fail to defend this great dharma of man kind please forgive me.

How can I explain something which is not a group nor is it many groups, or combination of both? All I know is to live by my dharma, and there is no equivalent in English for this word. It is not like going to church one day in a week do my prayer and go back and forget about it. Dharma is to live by it 24/7. Slowly realizing this miserable condition of life is product of my own doing, what I do in this life will effect my future existence.

The soul is part of god, a free sprit, entangled in this material condition of life, trying to get out.

I find it very difficult to belong to any group, which puts constrains on an individual soul, stifling its free spirit. Hindu dharma give you this choice.Sadhu and saant move from one place to another giving their mercy, my koti koti pranam.

I am not here to promote or reject any group

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Why my parents had bothered to instil all those good values of following the Hindu dharma when all they had to do was to say son you are this body!

--the fact is not that your parents have not given spiritual values to you, the fact is that you call these spiritual values hinduism, but they actually are of one of the various (=many) religions practiced in india.. hinduism comes from india.. the name of a land

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Here I am defending Hindu dharma an age old tradition based on teaching of Vedas and related shastras

--i call it an attempt to put together for political purposes many incompatible ideas.. ....

 

so if I fail to defend this great dharma of man kind please forgive me.

--i think that your idea is very clear and you english is very much better than mine

 

How can I explain something which is not a group nor is it many groups, or combination of both?

--so what is? if it is nothing why follow?

 

All I know is to live by my dharma, and there is no equivalent in English for this word.

--dharma means the true nature, the characteristic feature of something... the dharma of fire is the heat, the dharma of water is the wetness... the fact is that there's not the possibility to find one real commond dharma for all the schools put together by hindu advocates

 

Dharma is to live by it 24/7.

--for this, because it is a very important thing i and most of vaishnavas do not accept approximations and vagueness

 

I find it very difficult to belong to any group, which puts constrains on an individual soul, stifling its free spirit.

--there's another face of the coin.... your "no grouping" is in itself a position, a decision to avoid to go deeper. And there's nothing bad in remaining on the surface, but it is useless to give a name to this surface. Hinduist is one who does not want to go deep but likes to be under a denomination together with other people

 

Sadhu and saant move from one place to another giving their mercy

--and they do not consider themselves hindu, they are accurate in their identification, not superficial

 

I am not here to promote or reject any group

---so why promote hinduism? even if it is a non-group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re

(This is material designation, we all here follow Vedas, which propounds we are living entities.)

 

It will be hard to separate the material designation, even a group or a insitution is a material designation.

atatho bramhJinasa that is what Vedas ask of living entities.

=====

 

No its not, Mathas are not material groups, they are spiritual institition. Your forgetting Varna system.

 

Re-wind, I hate when ppls do the whole, cutting somebodys Post to shreads with a whole lot of Regardings, anyways, haribol.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--the fact is not that your parents have not given spiritual values to you, the fact is that you call these spiritual values hinduism, but they actually are of one of the various (=many) religions practiced in india.. hinduism comes from india.. the name of a land)

 

 

Subject was not what my parents had given me as spritual values, i was questining if Hindu was just a body given by my mother, as stated by Govindram, then there was no need for them to teach me anything else on hindu)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

=====

 

No its not, Mathas are not material groups, they are spiritual institition. Your forgetting Varna system.)

 

 

Everyone calls there institution spriritual, and that may be, but belonging to anyone of tham does not automaticaly transport you to spiritual world.from whare there is no return.

 

 

Re

(Re-wind, I hate when ppls do the whole, cutting somebodys Post to shreads with a whole lot of Regardings, anyways, haribol.)

 

Haribol, sorry i do not wish to insight hate by you, but this is a public forum if you state something, you are bound to get a response.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re-wind, I hate when ppls do the whole, cutting somebodys Post to shreads with a whole lot of Regardings, anyways, haribol.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--i call it an attempt to put together for political purposes many incompatible ideas.. ....)

 

I have no political agenda, many ideas incompatible or not were there followed by people of this land, call it what you like, i call this Hindu Dharma.

 

Re

(--i think that your idea is very clear and you english is very much better than mine)

 

I read you loud and clear also except i find it very difficult to translate my thought in English, it is taking me a long time writing a sentance.

 

 

Re

(--so what is? if it is nothing why follow?)

 

dont take my choice away.

 

 

Re

(--dharma means the true nature, the characteristic feature of something... the dharma of fire is the heat, the dharma of water is the wetness... the fact is that there's not the possibility to find one real commond dharma for all the schools put together by hindu advocates)

 

 

That is because dharma of the soul is more complex.how can you define desires of an individual free soul?

 

 

Re

(Dharma is to live by it 24/7.

--for this, because it is a very important thing i and most of vaishnavas do not accept approximations and vagueness.)

 

That is your choice. Ananta Koti Vaishnava ki Jay.

 

 

(I find it very difficult to belong to any group, which puts constrains on an individual soul, stifling its free spirit.)

 

Re

(--there's another face of the coin.... your "no grouping" is in itself a position, a decision to avoid to go deeper.)

 

What ever one choose is a position, so what? it does not mean avoiding to go deeper.

 

 

Re

( And there's nothing bad in remaining on the surface, but it is useless to give a name to this surface. Hinduist is one who does not want to go deep but likes to be under a denomination together with other people)

 

It is neither useless nor avoiding to go deeper, this is your opinion only. go take a dip the ocean is vast.

 

 

 

((Sadhu and saant move from one place to another giving their mercy))

 

Re

(--and they do not consider themselves hindu, they are accurate in their identification, not superficial)

 

They do not consider themselves anything, precisely what i mean no group, there message and mercy is for everyone

There identification is with the Lord.

 

 

Re

(---so why promote hinduism? even if it is a non-group? )

 

 

Am i? Protecting yes Pratcing yes Imposing NO

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Re

(Re-wind, I hate when ppls do the whole, cutting somebodys Post to shreads with a whole lot of Regardings, anyways, haribol.)

 

Haribol, sorry i do not wish to insight hate by you, but this is a public forum if you state something, you are bound to get a response.

--

 

I see you don't have a sence of humour, my mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...