Religion Thread - 5

Locked
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Prem wrote:Assumption that Saguna and Nirguna are different is not valid.

There is onlee one Supreme Reality
Correct.

And this is precisely what many people get confused about.
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

S.Valkan wrote:Without being immersed in the liquid of Bhakti, the rice won't cook with just the fire of Jnana,- you will only get half-baked, burnt rice.
as opposed to immersing one's brain in alcohol and lighting a fire (cigarette)? ... I knew my technique had a serious flaw ... I am stockpiling burnt rice ... :)

but seriously, a calm mind is needed to contemplate ... bhakti is a generic name for all sorts of virtual balms one can apply to one's mind in order to be humble and hence be calm and peaceful ... (I am not claiming great suceess, just a realization of the correct path ahead ... )
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

brahman - the duality link to the ever expanding brahmanic universe, multi dimensional membrane.
atman - the singularity point for intelligence, a fundemental particle which realizes with human consciousness
nirguna brahman - mirror symmetry membrane that is devoid of strings, consists of many parallel universe.
saguna brahman - fundemental particles stringed with other similar particles(grid of strings).
para brahman - responsible for brahmanizations, big bangs, exapansions, collisions of other types of brahmans
:!:
=================

PS:

Another issue that runs through my mind always.. and this is because I am answerable to many questions my little daughter asks.

lets take the stories of Sankara.. especially the magical parts (keeping the philosophy apart).

1. Sankara's parents had a choice what kind of boy they want, and they chose Sankara!

2. Laday giving Biksha for Sankara made her rich showered with golden amlakis! (kanakadara stotra)

3. Sankara chants mantra, and the crocodile lets him go 'unscathed'!

4. ...

some of the magical events I agree is reasonable and visualizable, like he gets full blown knowledge of vedas by age 8 etc. but, why such a thing like golden amlakis, corcodile letting him go, etc.. is it just to make him well known to the C & Ds, and that makes As and Bs thing, they don't need to tell such stories as they would understand the philosophy as is.

i am not asking for validations of the philosophy here.. but the other side of the stories of such great men, are always doing some magical powerful things.

may be I dont understand, since for those magic, I am still in the D class. or is it that As and Bs would not even know about his philosophy had it not been for those magical events?
G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Archeology proves Old Testament incorrect

Post by G Subramaniam »

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Referen ... rpers).htm

False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History. (Criticism).



Author: Daniel Lazare

Harper's Magazine

Issue: March, 2002

--

Not long ago, archaeologists could agree that the Old Testament, for all its embellishments and contradictions, contained a kernel of truth. Obviously, Moses had not parted the Red Sea or turned his staff into a snake, but it seemed clear that the Israelites had started out as a nomadic band somewhere in the vicinity of ancient Mesopotamia; that they had migrated first to Palestine and then to Egypt; and that, following some sort of conflict with the authorities, they had fled into the desert under the leadership of a mysterious figure who was either a lapsed Jew or, as Freud maintained, a high-born priest of the royal sun god Aton whose cult had been overthrown in a palace coup. Although much was unknown, archaeologists were confident that they had succeeded in nailing down at least these few basic facts.


That is no longer the case. In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an 'indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore.

The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history. The religion we call Judaism does not reach well back into the second millennium B.C. but appears to be, at most, a product of the mid-first.


Jewish monotheism, the sole and exclusive worship of an ancient Semitic god known as Yahweh, did not fully coalesce until the period between the Assyrian conquest of the northern Jewish kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. and the Babylonian conquest of the southern kingdom of Judah in 586.


Judaism appears to have been the product not of some dark and nebulous period of early history but of a more modern age of big-power politics in which every nation aspired to the imperial greatness of a Babylon or an Egypt. Judah, the sole remaining Jewish outpost by the late eighth century B.C., was a small, out-of-the-way kingdom with little in the way of military or financial clout. Yet at some point its priests and rulers seem to have been seized with the idea that their national deity, now deemed to be nothing less than the king of the universe, was about to transform them into a great power. They set about creating an imperial past commensurate with such an empire, one that had the southern heroes of David and Solomon conquering the northern kingdom and making rival kings tremble throughout the known world. From a "henotheistic" cult in which Yahweh was worshiped as the chief god among many, they refashioned the national religion so that henceforth Yahweh would be worshiped to the exclusion of all other deities. One law, that of Yahweh, would now reign supreme

Not only is there no evidence that any such figure as Abraham ever lived but archaeologists believe that there is no way such a figure could have lived given what we now know about ancient Israelite origins.


A growing volume of evidence concerning Egyptian border defenses, desert sites where the fleeing Israelites supposedly camped, etc., indicates that the flight from Egypt did not occur in the thirteenth century before Christ; it never occurred at all. Although Johnson writes that the story of Moses had to be true because it "was beyond the power of the human mind to invent," we now know that Moses was no more historically real than Abraham before him. Although Johnson adds that Joshua, Moses's lieutenant, "began and to a great extent completed the conquest of Canaan," the Old Testament account of that conquest turns out to be fictional as well

archaeologists believe that David was not a mighty potentate whose power was felt from the Nile to the Euphrates but rather a freebooter who carved out what was at most a small duchy in the southern highlands around Jerusalem and Hebron. Indeed, the chief disagreement among scholars nowadays is between those who hold that David was a petty hilltop chieftain whose writ extended no more than a few miles in any direction and a small but vociferous band of "biblical minimalists" who maintain that he never existed at all.


By the late nineteenth century members of this school had arrived at the conclusion that the first five books of the Old Testament--variously known as the Five Books of Moses, the Torah, or the Pentateuch--were not written by Moses himself, as tradition would have it. Rather, they were largely products of a "post-exilic period" in which Jewish scribes, newly released from captivity in Babylon, set about putting a jumbled collection of ancient writings into some sort of coherent order. The Higher Criticism did not topple the Old Testament as a whole, but it did conclude that Abraham, Isaac, and the other tribal founders depicted in the Book of Genesis were no more real than the heroes of Greek or Norse mythology.

Basing his argument on a redating of pottery shards found at a dig in the biblical city of Hazor, Aharoni proposed instead that the first Hebrew settlers had filtered into Palestine in a nonviolent fashion, peacefully settling among the Canaanites rather than putting them to the sword

This was not all. As Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a journalist who specializes in biblical and religious subjects, point out in their recent book, The Bible Unearthed, the patriarchal tales make frequent mention of camel caravans. When, for example, Abraham sent one of his servants to look for a wife for Abraham's son, Isaac, Genesis 24 says that the emissary "took ten of his master's camels and left, taking with him all kinds of good things from his master." Yet analysis of ancient animal bones confirms that camels were not widely used for transport in the region until well after 1000 B.C. Genesis 26 tells of Isaac seeking help from a certain "Abimelech, king of the Philistines." Yet archaeological research has confirmed that the Philistines were not a presence in the area until after 1200 B.C. The wealth of detail concerning people, goods, and cities that makes the patriarchal tales so vivid and lifelike, archaeologists discovered, were reflective of a period long after the one that Albright had pinpointed. They were reflective of the mid-first millennium, not the early second.


Rather than revealing that Canaan was entered from the outside, analysis of ancient settlement patterns indicated that a distinctive Israelite culture arose locally around 1200 B.C. as nomadic shepherds and goatherds ceased their wanderings and began settling down in the nearby uplands. Instead of an alien culture, the Israelites were indigenous. Indeed, they were highly similar to other cultures that were emerging in the region around the same time--except for one thing: whereas archaeologists found pig bones in other sites, they found none among the Israelites. A prohibition on eating pork may have been one of the earliest ways in which the Israelites distinguished themselves from their neighbors.

Thus there was no migration from Mesopotamia, no sojourn in Egypt, and no exodus. There was no conquest upon the Israelites' return and, for that matter, no peaceful infiltration
Finkelstein and Silberman concluded that Judah and Israel had never existed under the same roof. The Israelite culture that had taken shape in the central hill country around 1200 B.C. had evolved into two distinct kingdoms from the start. Whereas Judah remained weak and isolated, Israel did in fact develop into an important regional power beginning around 900 B.C. It was as strong and rich as David and Solomon's kingdom had supposedly been a century earlier, yet it was not the sort of state of which the Jewish priesthood approved. The reason had to do with the nature of the northern kingdom's expansion. As Israel grew, various foreign cultures came under its sway, cultures that sacrificed to gods other than Yahweh. Pluralism became the order of the day: the northern kings could manage such a diverse empire only by allowing these cultures to worship their own gods in return for their continued loyalty. The result was a policy of religious syncretism, a theological pastiche in which the cult of Yahweh coexisted alongside those of other Semitic deities.

When the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians, the Jewish priesthood concluded not that Israel had played its cards badly in the game of international politics but that by tolerating other cults it had given grave offense to the only god that mattered. Joining ,a stream of refugees to the south, the priests swelled the ranks of an influential political party dedicated to the proposition that the only way for Judah to avoid a similar fate was to cleanse itself of all rival beliefs and devote itself exclusively to Yahweh.

The monotheistic movement reached a climax in the late seventh century B.C. when a certain King Josiah took the throne and gave the go-ahead for a long-awaited purge. Storming through the countryside, Josiah and his Yahwist supporters destroyed rival shrines, slaughtered alien priests, defiled their altars, and ensured that henceforth even Jewish sacrifice take place exclusively in Jerusalem, where the priests could exercise tight control. The result, the priests and scribes believed, was a national renaissance that would soon lead to the liberation of the north and a similar cleansing there as well.

Does this mean that monotheism was nothing more than a con, a ruse cooked up by ambitious priests in order to fool a gullible population?


How could Moses prohibit murder and then, in Numbers 31, fly into a rage because a returning Israelite war party has slaughtered only the adult male Midianites? ("Now kill all the boys," he tells them when he calms down. "And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.") Was murder a crime only when it involved members of the in-group? Or was it a crime when it involved human beings in general, regardless of nationality

Indeed, the chief disagreement among scholars nowadays is between those who hold that David was a petty hilltop chieftain whose writ extended no more than a few miles in any direction and a small but vociferous band of "biblical minimalists" who maintain that he never existed at all.
AshokS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 29 Jan 2007 08:57

Post by AshokS »

Request to Admins... Please archive all religion threads....

very informative stuff and think will be valuable source of content and future research...
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Trying to get this thread back on track.

It all started with fears of a threat to Indian identity by jihad and proselytization.

It is fairly easy to pinpoint the specific efforts made by evanjihadis and Islam to subvert and create social change.

It is less easy to pinpoint why this proclaimed greatness of Hindu dharma is said to be such a pushover in the face of faiths whose faults are so easy to show up?

Are these five threads an indicator of some sort? Leave alone agreement, where is the evidence of widespread awareness and knowledge of Hindu dharma and principles among all the forum members. Especially those who claim that something is being lost. I would have thought that those who suspect that something is being lost should be at the forefront of pointing out what is being lost and why.

It will be easy to accuse me of claiming that here is no threat. But all I find on these threads is either easy accusation of other's "trespasses" or rapturous acclaim of Hindu thought.

What needs protection? Who needs protection? Can you protect what has already been lost? When it appears that so many educated forum members do not seem to have a clue about the Hindu dharma they claim to stand for, why the lament about loss.

Surely a lack of awareness and knowledge of what one claims is one's own heritage should not be continuously blamed on extraneous forces. By blaming extraneous forces in this day and age one of the major problems among Hindus is being "buck-passed" on to evanjehadis and Islamists.

The evenjihadis and islamists are merely reaping what Hindu decadence has sown.

I see nothing to reassure me that I am wrong. Anger and accusations of dhimmitude are no substitute for a cold and clinical assessment of what the matter is and what is the way forward.

Six threads and over a thousand messages later - there are no answers - but to me there are "indicators" that give me an inkling. Will post my thought by and by as ideas gel in my own mind.
Older threads archived at
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewforum.php?f=19
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

shiv wrote:Can you protect what has already been lost?
excellent point ... IMO, a revival is needed rather than protection ...

also, as revivals go, the content has to be recast in today's language ...

hence, as I have been ranting, it has to be presented in scientific terminology ... that is the most universal language today ...

the west "stole" Indian concepts and incorporated them ... it is time for India to "steal" western science and incorporate it into its philosophy ...

this will not only "protect" heritage, it will propel India ahead of the rest of the world in terms of belief systems ...
When it appears that so many educated forum members do not seem to have a clue about the Hindu dharma they claim to stand for, why the lament about loss.
when I was a kid, the older generation used to lament that their children were listening to western music and doing the "twist" ... they would sing praises of Indian dance forms etc ...

all one had to do was look at one fat uncle after another and ask them, "boss, when was the last time you put on some ghunghroo and did some kathak? ...

[fwiw, once upon a time I did join a kathak class but that's because that's where the wimmens were ... my friends made fun of me, but I had the last laugh ... 8) ]

in any case, I will agree that what is being "protected" is not a big "loss" but what is "lost" is being "ignored" ...
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

In ancient India -(to put a simple date on it - I will randomly pick the India of more than 3000 years ago) there were people who probably feared and respected nature like all other humans. These people worried about disaster, death and sought pleasure and freedom from pain like anyone else.

Perhaps the earliest source of comfort came from conjuring up "God" as an explanation of why your loved ones were eaten by a Tiger.

The thinking that went into these things in India advanced over the millennia to an extent that God was removed from the equation. One did not have to have a "God" as an explanation for oneself and the Universe. There were other streams of thought as well to explain and understand the world, and the knowledge went beyond life and death to astronomy, math and science

However - the singular feature that set India apart from other (known/surviving) civilizations is that the various thinkers and schools of thought did not see the need to impose their thoughts on others and remove others from reckoning. To use a modern day expression, Indian knowledge did not suffer from any interdisciplinary jealousy. The other singular feature was that none of this knowledge arose as a force of political change. The knowledge was gained for the sake of understanding, and not for bashing someone on the head to coerce him to change his thoughts.

It was in the badlands of the Middle east and Southern Europe where monotheism arose as a political force. Perhaps monotheism initially arose only as "yet another belief system" (as in India) - but, as people have pointed out, Christianity in particular was taken up with rabid rage by the Romans ("Pauline Christianity??") and the military force of the previously pagan Roman empire was used to impose the new faith on everyone else.

Centuries later Mohammad took up much of what already existed in monotheistic belief, tweaked it about a bit, and applied his principle with even greater vigor and murderous force.

That the set the tone for what we see today.

Hinduism was never a political force. Both Christianity and Islam were political forces and remain that way.

The "you farted" principle that I spoke of in earlier threads describe political Christianity and Islam to a T when you look at their relationships with all other people of different beliefs including the people who are described as Idol Worshipping Hindus (IWH)

Let me stick to the IWH. The Idol Worshipping Hindus have no problem with any other belief system. Every belief system is OK because it is just another way to seek knowledge and understand and live in this world. The IWH does not try to actively force or convert anyone to come round to his viewpoint because the other viewpoint is just fine. There is no built in political instruction coded into the plethora of beliefs of the IWH asking him to do that.

Both Christianity and islam on the other hand operate on the rule that "If someone else does not agree with our rules, he is wrong. He is against us. He is against our God. Our God will either "not save him" (Christianity) or "will punish him" (Islam)"

In other words when Christianity or Islam meet any other faith (even each other) the reaction of the faith is "You farted". You stink because you are wrong. You may not have attacked me. You may not even dislike me. But you are wrong nevertheless. My God does not agree with you, unless you agree with what he says.

Unfortunately the IWH has built in secularism in an environment in which politicians are supposed to be secular, but religions can use political power to undermine secularism because the religions that do that are political in nature.

Under these circumstances what is wrong if Idol Worshipping Hindus aspire for Ram Rajya? I would suggest that "Ram Rajya" is more just and plural and accepting of all beliefs than the current biased atmosphere of calling for secularism and protecting political Christianty and Islam as an attack on secularism?

The relentless spreading of something into new areas has been termed as expansionism. In what way are political Christianity and Islam not indulging in expansionism? If expansionism is OK as an individual right, then does individual right bestow upon someone the right to declare that someone else's belief is wrong? Even if that right is allowed, is it wrong for the IWH to resist that.
Last edited by shiv on 29 Mar 2007 15:55, edited 2 times in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

If the Idol Worshipping Hindu who

a) has never actively sought to spread his belief system by force.

b) has never actively sought to spread his belief system by coercion and inducement

c)does not have a recorded history of having gone to other lands and destroyed places of worship of other faiths in those lands

suddenly turns around and asks why others who have used violence in the past should continue to use violence and inducement to spread their faith,

does this make the Idol Worshipping Hindu

a) a violent reactionary?
b) a Hindu fundamentalist?
c) a Hindu revivalist?
d) an enemy of secularism?
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

shiv wrote: does this make the Idol Worshipping Hindu

a) a violent reactionary?
b) a Hindu fundamentalist?
c) a Hindu revivalist?
d) an enemy of secularism?
all of the above ... :rotfl:
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8236
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Post by disha »

shiv wrote:does this make the Idol Worshipping Hindu

a) a violent reactionary?
b) a Hindu fundamentalist?
c) a Hindu revivalist?
d) an enemy of secularism?
And imagine the angst of a common idol worshipping Hindu when they are branded all of the above?
Last edited by disha on 29 Mar 2007 09:47, edited 1 time in total.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Post by merlin »

all of the above ...
And lots more
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

well.. more to the fact that Hinduism accepts other religious faith to come in and flourish and plunder.. and suddenly Hinduism can't take the role of the other terrorist/jihadic types, and say we don't accept your invasion now.. means its like all of the above and more.

Hinduism should rather refactor its rules viz living with other religions... ensuring a secure place with full freedom to all religios beliefs but based on co-existence and non cohersion.

If other religions just can't do this.. and we have already poised to accept the fact that the mere asking of a question could make it a terrorist religion, then we might have to accept it since, that is the dharma we chose.. we don't do premptive attacks on enemies, unless we see it just.

the same is true even in mahabarat days.. where Arjun has to be coaxed to accept Krishna to kill the enemies.

we remain!
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

are we saying that adharma, i.e., conscious ignorance, should be dealt with using extreme prejudice? ...

some forms of faith are "legislated ignorance" ... how should a forward-looking society deal with such menace?

we legislate in the US that kids have to go to school, i.e., ignorance is not an option ...

why should others get a free pass?
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

Alok_N wrote:are we saying that adharma, i.e., conscious ignorance should be dealt with extreme prejudice? ... :wink:
In the competetive enviornment of Ejs world/view , Hinduism is a soft target because it did not compete in chopping the heads of Adharmic faith drones. The trick is to change the preception.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

The moment you start doing such tricks, soon there would no difference between Hinduism and EJistic-isms.

rules and common rules are important..
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

SaiK wrote:rules and common rules are important..
what is "important" about the "rule" that "I will be Ben Dover and you be Amritraj"?
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

The evenjihadis and islamists are merely reaping what Hindu decadence has sown.
...


... (to complete the sentence)... in the minds of poor, destitute and neglected hindus of hinterland, slums and other area...


Why EJs are only targetting tribal and inaccessible areas or the areas which did not see any other HOs or government's sympathy?

As far as, the success of HOs are concerned, i would like to mention two movements in gujarat who had some vedantic touch in their approach and how they prevented EJs and Js to get more inroads:

1) Swadhyaya Movement of Late Shri Panduran Shastri Athavale

this movement has strong vedantics influence which has penetrated right in the heart of rural folks. you will find farmers and other craftsman who are not so literate quoting bhagvad gita or upnishad. they will even recite some stanzas when they will talk veda and Athvale's work.

Late P S Athvale went directly to tribals called vagharis who were most vulnerable to conversion. He requested his people to call them Jungleputra (sons of forests).

Simultaneously he approached fishermen (calling them sagarputras), farmers (bhumiputra) and diamond cutters (ratnakars). these people run the swadhyaya movement.

Bringing a mix of karma and bhakti (his famous statement "bhakti is a social force") to the gujarat's rural folks.

He started establishing other social movements for economic upliftment by doing joint activities once in a fortnihgt/month to bring prosperity for destitutes. these experiments are known as Yogeshwar Krishi, Upavans, Shri Darshanam, Matsyagandha projects which unlike EJs broght prosperity to people doing their karma for common good (and not by lure and fear)

Though he was a marathi, he used to give discourses in plain gujarati and for all india level in Hindi.

Now, his movement might not be that strong in his absence, but his (vedanti) thoughts have penetrated well in society.

P S Athvale was awarded Priyadarshini Vrikshamitra awards for his work in afforestation, Magsaysay award for social upliftment and Templeton award of US $ 1.1 million for enhancing understanding of religions and upliftment of neglected.

2) The BAPS movement

The Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Sanstha is an older movement compared to swadhyaya.

Their most of the followers are craftsmen, farmers and merchants and vendors.

The movement is based on Bhakti only. Their pockets are very deep and have brought at least one side of hinduism to world stage thru' their charity work which even foreign funded missionaries will not be able to surpass.

their hospitals, education institues etc are very big, prosperous and in tune with time. they run scholarship for poor students.

The temple art and architecture has got a major boost as they have constructed many magnificent tempels in India and abroac.

They also have recently made an IMAX movie mystique india (this was screened at IMAX wadala)

***

there may be many movements at a local level in many states which actually touch upon the hindus who were either neglected or ignored and are vulnerable to conversion.

duty of a good indian is to support such movement in whatever way possible to thwart EJ/J threats.

The art of living movement is one such movement but i don't know much about it.
Last edited by Murugan on 29 Mar 2007 11:17, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshG
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 29 Mar 2003 12:31

Post by RajeshG »

Johannji

Lets take up the discussion some other time.

--------------

In keeping with the path this thread is following perhaps people will find the following debate interesting. (reverse chronological order)

The Swami, the Priest and the Rediscovery of the Indian Traditions: A Reply to Chitra Raman
Author : Jakob DeRoover

http://tinyurl.com/34hq99

Is American Pluralism Inimical to Hindu Culture? Perspectives on a paper by Dr. Jakob DeRoover
Author : Chitra Raman

http://tinyurl.com/324sjc

FACING THE CHALLENGE OF AMERICAN PLURALISM ON THE FUTURE OF THE NRI COMMUNITY
Author : Jakob DeRoover

http://tinyurl.com/3baqq4
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

S.Valkan wrote:Actually the words Anantam and Anandam are identical,- Anantam Eva Anandam.

'Unhappiness' is caused by some limitations imposed upon you.

If only you were not limited by money and resources, you could obtain all the goodies that would make you happy.

If only you were not limited physically by space-time, you could do all the things that would make you happy anywhere anytime.

So, 'happiness' or 'bliss' is a direct corollary of freedom from limitations.

Now, Anantam is freedom from limitations ( Infinite/Limitless ).

And freedom from limitations is Happiness/Bliss aka Anandam.

So, Anantam is Anandam.
Isn't anant the expansion of conciousness to the extremities of universe, internally perceived (that is, not via 5 senses)? And anand is self absorption.

When we talk of sensory perception vs insight (or, ESP as some would prefer), we are talking of imperfect versus perfect perception. In both cases, the perception is of the other. However, anand is self-absorption, rather than other perception.

It is true that since the state of anand is auto-associated with the lack of (psychological) restraints. And anant itself means non restraint. An=non, ant=end/control/restraint.

However, to say that anant and anand are the one is to focus solely on one quality - lack of restraint.

Whereas, is we focus on the source of the two states, they derive from very different places. For a yogi, the experience of anant is a stepping stone to reach anand. The experience of anant is necessary to get rid of fear, 'bhaya'. And the removal of bhaya is necessary to reach anand. Anant is one step lower than anand.

--------------------

Talking in terms of kundalini.
When union if agya chakra and sahatrara takes place, the yogi experiences anant. This state is also identical to Dharana.

And the continuation of this state is anand. And this state is also called Samadhi, the eighth stage of Ashtanga Yog.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

Upnaishads claim whatever is out there is also here inside, there is no difference.
are you talking about “yata piNDe, tata brahmANDeâ€
Last edited by Murugan on 29 Mar 2007 12:45, edited 1 time in total.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

Ishopanishad...

andham tamah pravisanti ye'vidyamupasate |
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyayam ratah 9
andham tamah = relentless, blinding darkness; pravisanti = enter into, obtain; ye = those who; avidyam = with incorrect understanding, having failed to grasp correctly; upasate = worship, meditate upon; tatah = and then, than that; bhuyah = greater; iva = undoubtedly; te = they, those who; tamah = darkness; ya = who; u = but; vidyayam = proper knowledge; ratah = engaged in, devoted to.

Those who worship [Visnu or others] with false understanding enter dense, unrelenting darkness; to a greater darkness than that go they, who are merely devoted to the correct understanding (but do not care to criticize incorrect understanding).

plight of the EJs and their supporters is now knwon :)

We may say, therefore, that ``a great responsibility rests with him who knows; he is bound to teach others, [else] his lot is even worse than those of the ignorant.''

Not only is it the case that one must condemn false knowledge in order to avoid the greater suffering that would ensue if one did not, but one must also do so because the two things, correct understanding and condemnation of incorrect understanding, each have their own separate result that one should seek, thus the next verse --


anyadevahurvidyaya'nyadahuravidyaya |
iti susruma dhiranam ye nastadvicacaksire 10
anyat = the other, different; eva = only; ahuh = they (the learned) say; vidyaya = by correct understanding; avidyaya = by criticism of false understanding; iti = thus; susrumah = we have heard; dhiranam = dhimatam = persons of sound understanding; ye = who; nah = us; tad = that; vicacaksire = vyacacaksire = explained, taught.

We heard from the wise and judicious, who explained to us that the result of having the right knowledge is different from the result of condemning the wrong knowledge.

Therefore, both (practice of correct understanding and criticism of false understanding) are needed.

The difference claimed here is now explained --


vidyam cavidyam ca yastadvedobhayam saha |
avidyaya mrtyum tirtva vidyaya'mrtamasnute 11
vidyam = exact knowledge of Visnu; avidya = criticism of false knowledge; ca = and (in conjunction with); yah = who; tad = that; veda = knows; ubhayam = both; saha = together, at the same time; avidyaya = by means of criticism of false knowledge; mrtyum = death (and other undesirables such as suffering and ignorance); tirtva = having overcome, crossed over; vidyaya = by means of correct knowledge; amrtam = moksa characterized by enjoyment; asnute = obtains.

One who knows the correct knowledge, and also criticizes false knowledge, for him, by criticism of false knowledge (which causes suffering), he overcomes suffering, and by practice of correct knowledge (which causes enjoyment), he obtains mukti.

It has been said that false knowledge causes suffering, and that correct knowledge gives mukti. How is this so? This is clarified --


andham tamah pravisanti ye'sambhutimupasate |
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sambhutyam ratah 12
andham tamah = relentless, blinding darkness; pravisanti = enter into, obtain; ye = those who; asambhutim = `srstikarta na' = ``not Creator,'' having failed to grasp Visnu as the Creator; upasate = worship, meditate upon; tatah = and then, than that; bhuyah = greater; iva = undoubtedly; te = they, those who; tamah = darkness; ya = who; u = but; sambhutyam = as Creator only; ratah = engaged in, devoted to.

Those who worship [Visnu] with the understanding that He is not the Creator, enter dense, unrelenting darkness; to a greater darkness than that go they, who merely think of Him as the Creator alone [but not as the Sustainer or Destroyer].

It has been said earlier that the Lord is the Sustainer, hence that also should be understood.

Not only is it the case that one must know the Lord as being the Creator as well as the Destroyer so that the suffering that would ensue if one of these were not known could be avoided, one must also do so because the two things, knowing Him as Creator and as Destroyer, each have their own separate result that one should seek, thus the next verse --


anyadevahuh sambhavadanyadahurasambhavat |
iti susruma dhiranam ye nastadvicacaksire 13
anyat = the other, different; eva = only; ahuh = they (the learned) say; sambhavat = by correct understanding as Creator; asambhavat = by correct understanding as Destroyer; iti = thus; susrumah = we have heard; dhiranam = dhimatam = persons of sound understanding; ye = who; nah = us; tad = that; vicacaksire = vyacacaksire = explained, taught.

We have heard from the wise, who explained to us that the result of having knowledge of Him as Creator is different from the result of knowing Him as the Destroyer.

What is this difference? The next verse clarifies --


sambhutim ca vinasam ca yastadvedobhayam saha |
vinasena mrtyum tirtva sambhutya'mrtamasnute 14
sambhutim = knowledge of Visnu as Creator; vinasam = knowledge of Him as Destroyer; ca = and (in conjunction with); yah = who; tad = that; veda = knows; ubhayam = both; saha = together, at the same time; vinasena = by means of knowing Him as Destroyer; mrtyum = death (and other undesirables such as suffering and ignorance); tirtva = having overcome, crossed over; sambhutya = by means of knowing Him as Creator; amrtam = moksa characterized by enjoyment; asnute = obtains.

One who knows Visnu as Creator, and also as the Destroyer, for him, by knowledge of Him as Destroyer, he overcomes suffering, and by knowing Him as Creator, he obtains mukti.
amar_g
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 28 Nov 2006 11:09

Post by amar_g »

Since P S Athavale has been mentioned..can some learned member post on the Bhakti movement of Maharashtra..and why so many saints were born in this part of India during 1200-1700 ..(infact maharashtra is also referred to as the land of saints) ...was it due to the on slaught of the mugals and forced conversions? Its also said C. Shivaji was a follower of Saint Ramdass who imbibed in him to be a protector against forced conversion and opression..

It definitely fascinates me to see people even in this day and age..go walking to pandharpur to get a darshan of Lord Vitthal..even when we say god is in everything..resides everywhere....its really confusing at times...has science spoilt me..has it taken away the understanding of the concept of bhakti in me which i can easily see in my parents...
mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Post by mandrake »

Holy wow! I didnt followed this thread from last archive, now i'm literally lost so much knowledge!

anyways, about EJ I guess sadler summed it up pretty well,
general rant:

One of the classic weapons of the EJ is the "You Farted'" theory, so aptly named by BRF's own Mr. Shiv.

When exposing the hatred of the EJ or even discussing retaliation in kind, the hindu (or the jew) may expect to be in turn accused of inciting hatred. The classic "you farted" accusation.

Let's look at this. Are there people on this thread advocating hatred for

The Buddhist Faith
The Jain Faith
The Sikh Faith
The Zoroastrian Faith
The Hebrew Faith
The Scientologists??

Heck no. Do at least some of these faith diverge in their doctrine from the hindu faith. Absolutely. You have here Zoroastrian faith, the forerunner to my own Hebrew faith. Both monotheistic. And faiths such as the Buddhist and Jain (pl correct me if i am wrong) which have been described to me as being atheistic faiths. Yet, these faiths have lived peacefully in India for a few millenia now. Perhaps, it should be the exponents of christianism and islam who should wonder about the intolerance of their own faiths, and the intolerant and biggoted acts of its own followers, before casting the proverbial first stone.

Instead, the discussion is focussed on exposing the hateful agenda of the EJs, and to the extent it pertains its inherent source in the christian bible. Same with islam.

Yet, this very expose is considered hateful. So, please dont get sucked up into being defensive about this in the face of such "you farted" accusations. Recognize them for what they are and recognize the persons hurling such "you farted" accusations for what they are.
Someone mentioned someone of writing a book please do the needful.
Also someone needs to write book rebuffing mad claims of terror naik, which have been rebuffed and known to us but not the masses fed with EJ/Islamic propaganda.

nitin jinda; do debate with him; hopefully you had put things in right way and cleared the misconception.
krangarajan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 17:06

Post by krangarajan »

S.Valkan wrote:
Prem wrote:Assumption that Saguna and Nirguna are different is not valid.

There is onlee one Supreme Reality
Correct.

And this is precisely what many people get confused about.
I'm one of those people, apparently. Are not the concepts of Saguna and Nirguna Brahman mutually exclusive? If Brahman encompasses both gunas and the lack thereof, doesn't this logically mean Brahman possesses attributes?

This is what I find so appealing about Ramanuja's work. He never negates Advaita, but rather takes it to (at least as I see it, in my limited knowledge) its logical conclusion. Brahman is indeed all-encompassing and unifying, but our place within Brahman is as one part in three (along with Ishvara and prakriti). Vishistadvaita is kind of like the middle ground between Shankara's suddha Advaita and Madhva's Dvaita; it integrates the concepts of beda, abeda, and bedaabeda, by realizing that Brahman incorporates all three of these.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

krangarajan wrote:Are not the concepts of Saguna and Nirguna Brahman mutually exclusive?
No they are not.

It seems either you glossed over the previous posts, or didn't make the best of it.
If Brahman encompasses both gunas and the lack thereof, doesn't this logically mean Brahman possesses attributes?
I suspect the concept of "lack thereof" is still not quite clear in your mind.

A small example may help.

Gold can be moulded into rings, bangles, chains, coins, bars, biscuits and so on.

Now, does Gold have an attribute shape, or does it have a "lack thereof" ?

It can be of ANY shape.

So, does it make sense to say Gold is of a PARTICULAR shape/form ?

If not, what happens to the "attribute" shape in the case of Gold ?

It is useless, because Gold can assume ANY shape.

That is what is meant by "lack thereof".

Now, if you try to "think" of Gold, invariably you think of Gold as a ring, chain, bangle, coin, bar or some such form,- the attribute "shape" BECOMES important in your thought.

Same with Brahman, which is Nirguna.

Only when you try to objectify it in thought, it is invariably "Saguna" Brahman.

They are not mutually exclusive.

I hope it is clear now.
This is what I find so appealing about Ramanuja's work. He never negates Advaita, but rather takes it to (at least as I see it, in my limited knowledge) its logical conclusion.
This is the beauty of Hinduism,- choose whatever floats your boat!

I said at the outset that Advaita is the most difficult concept to grasp, and it is not necessary that everyone accept it as "gospel truth", or break their heads over its sublime logical intricacies.

I had spent many moons in other fora patiently discussing why the logic of Advaita is inassailable.

I have even given a short example of Advaita logic from First Principles, WITHOUT the need for scriptures, in an earlier post, because many here had requested it.

I have no intention of going into another flurry of posts proving why Dvaita and Vishistadvaita concepts are logically indefensible.

They have their own place in the rung of spiritual growth, and are necessary - as Hinduism sees it - for people of different Adhikaritvam ( competency ).

In a free market of ideas, you are free to choose what best fits your liking and understanding.

If anyone here is adamant that "Bheda" and "BhedaBheda" are the pinnacles of their logical conclusions, or that they are sanguine that the "experience" of Ananda lies BEYOND Ananta, etc, so be it. :lol:
krangarajan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 17:06

Post by krangarajan »

Thanks, Valkan, for your nice reply. If I may, I still have some concepts not getting through my thick skull.
S.Valkan wrote: I suspect the concept of "lack thereof" is still not quite clear in your mind.

A small example may help.

Gold can be moulded into rings, bangles, chains, coins, bars, biscuits and so on.

Now, does Gold have an attribute shape, or does it have a "lack thereof" ?

It can be of ANY shape.

So, does it make sense to say Gold is of a PARTICULAR shape/form ?

If not, what happens to the "attribute" shape in the case of Gold ?

It is useless, because Gold can assume ANY shape.

That is what is meant by "lack thereof".

Now, if you try to "think" of Gold, invariably you think of Gold as a ring, chain, bangle, coin, bar or some such form,- the attribute "shape" BECOMES important in your thought.

Same with Brahman, which is Nirguna.

Only when you try to objectify it in thought, it is invariably "Saguna" Brahman.

They are not mutually exclusive.

I hope it is clear now.
But gold DOES have an attribute shape, doesn't it?
Image

When gold is broken down as far as we can take it, it does have a shape to it that is inherently its own. Sure gold can take on an infinite number of shapes, but at its core, it still has the requite relationship of electrons, neutrons, etc. that make it alone gold. It has attributes that are not applicable to anything else; even if we cannot imagine what gold is at its most essential, that does not exclude the fact that it still exists as such. Am I completely off base here?
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

krangarajan wrote: Sure gold can take on an infinite number of shapes, but at its core, it still has the requite relationship of electrons, neutrons, etc. that make it alone gold. It has attributes that are not applicable to anything else; even if we cannot imagine what gold is at its most essential, that does not exclude the fact that it still exists as such.
don't stop at that length scale ... the problems lie in finite thinking ... if you are going microscopic, try to reach zero ... if going macroscopic, try to reach infinity ... the atomic scale is a confusing pit-stop onlee ...

this is the common human condition which leads to mental suffering:

the passion of infinity, and the pain of finite hearts that yearn ...

if you were to continue, going down the scale of gold, you would examnine its nucleus, then its protons and neutrons, then the quarks within them ... then you may ask what gives mass to these energy bundles we call "quarks"? ...

the best known answer is this: vacuum ... essentially, zero and infinity are the same ...

it may help you to picture an infinite circle ... if you start at zero, infinity will be the end of your journey, which brings you back to zero ... more on vacuum below ...
Last edited by Alok_N on 29 Mar 2007 19:52, edited 2 times in total.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

krangarajan wrote:When gold is broken down as far as we can take it, it does have a shape to it that is inherently its own.
I'll give you a small hint.

Is what you just linked "as far as you can take it" ? :lol:

For starters, how about Beta and Gamma decays, or orbital excitations ?

What happens when electrons make the orbital jumps ?

WHICH "shape" are you talking about ? It changes every instant.

PS: I see Alok N has arrived. I'll leave it to the expert. :wink:
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

continuing with vacuum ...

it is essentially "Nirguna" as in, all its quantum numbers are ZERO ...

however, through a series of steps too complicated to go into, but basically known as "spontaneous symmetry breaking", physical vacuum generates attributes, i.e., it gives masses to various particles ...

the broken vacuum could be considered "Saguna", but it is the same vacuum ...

this is work in progress and I supect that there is much more left to be discovered ... however, the realization that the vacuum is the crux of the matter (no pun), is a powerful leap in western world's thinking ...
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

In fact the example of gold & associated multitude of shapes, and sea-water with its multitudes of waves, has an essential flaw in it.

The multitude of shapes of supposedly a single entity like gold or water doesn't arise because gold or water have some inherent "oneness". They arise solely because there is a big multitude of gold and water molecules. Its this rearranging of multitudes of molecules that creates the various shapes. Behind this multiplicity is another essential multiplicity (petrhaps the root one) of our world, of space-time that acts as a primary "divider" in our world. Without the inherent divisions created by space-time all these different shapes can not exist. So positing a "unity" by merely using a name of a class like gold or water on top of something which is essentially "divided" is incorrect.

Gold & water are not individuals, they are classes or sets. In advaita brahaman is never described as a group or set, but a singleton entity.

Despite persistent examples like "sea and its waves", even by Sri Ramakrishna, brahman is nothing like that. Sea is inherently "divided" into a huge multiplicity, not a good metaphor for Brahamn.

A better metaphor is in kaTha-upanishad & Gita of the upside-down ashvattha tree (Urdhva mUlo avak shAkhH, eSho ashvathhaH sanAtanaH -Gita 13th chapter) . With a single root at the top, and multitudes of branchings as one goes down. The root can approximate the saguNa brahman and branches as other lower levels of consciousness.

In shuddha-advaita, all the levels are assumed to be certain mutually exclusive levels of consciousness. Only when you subrate one level you become conscious of a higher level. Only in theistic versions, we see more inclusive kinds of consciousness which can simultaneously span multiple levels. So you have say something like nArAyaNa who is simultaneously one AND divided (bheda-abheda vAda), one Krishna who lives in every being's heart.
. Its like saying, that some kind of consciousnesses can exist that span the root of the upside down ashvattha as well as its branches. But this thinking is charaectristic of theistic versions of vedanta.
Last edited by Kumar on 29 Mar 2007 21:20, edited 2 times in total.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Alok_N wrote:it may help you to picture an infinite circle ... if you start at zero, infinity will be the end of your journey, which brings you back to zero ... more on vacuum below ...
An interesting anecdote on this from Srinivasa Ramanujan in terms of numbers:

"Zero represents Absolute Reality. Infinity is the myriad manifestations of that Reality.

Their mathematical product, Infinity x 0 is not one number, but all numbers each of which corresponds to individual acts of creation"

Such a wonderful exposition of Advaita!
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

S.Valkan wrote: "Zero represents Absolute Reality. Infinity is the myriad manifestations of that Reality.

Their mathematical product, Infinity x 0 is not one number, but all numbers each of which corresponds to individual acts of creation"
the basic physical definition is no different ... there is an infinite vacuum and an infinite "field" ... the field is defined in terms of one operator: A ...

A- == destruction operator

A+ == creation operator (it is the Hermitian conjugate of A-)

|N> is a state such that, the product of the two operators,

A+A- acting on |N> gives the answer "N" ...

hence it is called the Number operator ... but it could just as well be called the "Sustainer" operator ...

basically A+A- contains both A+ and A- and yet there is a trinity of operators ...

this is the Maya of physics ... 8)
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Alok_N wrote:however, through a series of steps too complicated to go into, but basically known as "spontaneous symmetry breaking", physical vacuum generates attributes, i.e., it gives masses to various particles ...
Now that KKB is no longer here with his Holy Dosa quips, I think a fair discussion on Higgs Goldstone theorem etc is in order. :wink:
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Wow! I was away for few days and the thread has evolved into knowledge powerhouse. I will need some time to digest all information. Based on whatever little I read, I sincerely request Valkanji to write the book on his interpretation of Vedic Philosophy. Please do it as a duty to pass on your Vedic heritage for generations to come.
Good news is that yours truly successfully defended his dissertation and got his PhD.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Post by Kakkaji »

Vishy_mulay wrote:Good news is that yours truly successfully defended his dissertation and got his PhD.
Congratulations!
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

In physics terms vacuum states are good analogies of ashvattha-branchings.

Typically a vaccum state is defined as the zero-particle-number state of a Fock space for a certain kind of particle. Different kinds of particles can have different vacuum states. Multiple vacuua are possible. Symmetry breaking generates multiple vacuua even for the same kind of particle. Although the usual Higgs mechanism creates a universal ground state with non-zero expectation value which seems like an oxymoron. A vaccum, which is usually supposed to have a zero expectation value for finding any particles, in the case of higgs particles permits a non-zero expectation value for finding them.

A single universal vacuum state that exists for all the particles including those yet to be discovered is a big assumption, although seems like a good metaphor for the root of the ashvattha-tree. But a problem still persists. Space-time divisions are not touched in quantum field theory, they are taken as a priori given.

An universal vaccum will correspond to brahman ONLY when in that description space-time divisions are also removed. I think a resolution of quantum gravity issues may show a way there. But despite many attempts, including string theory, that goal remains elusive.
Last edited by Kumar on 29 Mar 2007 21:16, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

zero and infinity has referential integrity issues .. however we use it in relation to finite elements. perhaps enforcing them to be used with "i" (imaginary complex number), could make relations.

is it possible in a cyclical theories to come back to same point say "zero (Zi)" when say, with a complex number at a point in infinity could be equated to Zi.?
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

Valkan,

let's see how this thread progresses ...

Shiv is trying to bring it back to the original premise, i.e., is EJ a threat?

Vishy,

congratulations on giving gyaan to some committee of examiners ... :)
Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Post by Abhijit »

wha...? I thought Shiv successfully brought this thread back to a sociopolitical discussion of religion rather than a super arcane metaphysical hash or rehash of stuff that < 0.01 % of BRFites care about - forget about the rest of the India - can we get back to a sociopolitical discussion of religion/s please ? Just a humble request from a dim-witted atheist/monist/monistatist/phonist whatever. If Shiv believes that this super-arcane metathingummyjig is fine then so be it. He is the starter of the thread.
Locked