Bharat Rakshak

talking of self-goals here is one...

[quote]'Liz-Nayar made mockery of Hinduism'

IANS
Posted Tuesday , March 13, 2007 at 22:45

Jodhpur: Now that the merrymaking is over, Liz Hurley and Arun Nayar may be in for a bit of trouble.

A criminal complaint has been filed in a lower court against the Indian-style wedding of British model-actress Liz and India-born businessman Nayar in Jodhpur saying the celebrity couple had made a mockery of Hindu customs.

Vishnu Khandelwal, who filed the case, has maintained that Liz and Nayar had made a mockery of Hindu customs and traditions and hurt the feelings of Hindus by marrying according to their religious custom, in spite of the fact that Hurley was not a Hindu and nor had she embraced the religion.

â€

shiv wrote:I see a curious suicidal dichotomy on here.

On the one hand people are quick to publicize and get angry at any criticism of the RSS but are very recessed and quiet when it comes to saying what good the RSS is doing.

Surely the bad name/bad press that the RSS has got needs to be countered by a documentation of their work by an independent non RSS group of people such as forum members?

How come, on average, people tend to associate RSS with "right wing extremism" while they never tend to associate the word "missionary" with anything like "extremism but with more positive things

There has to be a serious public relations bungle somewhere.

Shiv:

It is not suicidal but defensive.

It is not a ‘Public Relations Bungle’ as it is a brilliant Public Relations victory by the other side.

Since independence, the RSS and other ‘Hindutva’ organizations have been derided so much by the officialdom and the p-sec media that the perception has spread that these are some kind of villainous organizations, synonymous with Nazism and Fascism, that should be ridiculed, shunned and banned. That is why someone like Singhvi in HT blithely calls them “Chaddiwalas/ Kachchhawalasâ€

Alok_N wrote: I don't know enough to tell whether this is accurate or not ... but according to him, up to step 3 there was no god/goddess proliferation ...

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Sakalya asks Yajnavalkya "how many gods are there ?", and the answers progressively whittle down from 3003 to 1.

Conceptual representation of Vedic gods/goddesses existed since way back.

Even the Hittites and Mittani have their own Mitra and Varuna statutettes.

The Mundaka Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita both give "form" to Ishvara through cosmic allegories.

However, standard Tantric Vigrahas or anthropomorphic representation of Saguna Brahman or AdyaShakti Mahamaya, based on the RigVedic Suktas and Puranic characteristics, may have proliferated much later.

Raju wrote:talking of self-goals here is one...

'Liz-Nayar made mockery of Hinduism'

I see the opposite happening.

What this shows the world is that if an Indian believes his faith has been offended, he goes to court to sue the offender. Unlike the AK-47 wielding jehadis next door. It will show that the court took due cognizance of the complaint. People protested vociferously but non-violently (now that would be a self-goal). Hindus stood up for their rights within the space provided by the Indian judicial system. They will see no bearded mullahs or hindu priests muttering death to someone, or moronical placards carring the text "kill all those who insult the tolerant and peaceful onlee hindu religion." They will instead see some civilized behavior. And in the minds of the primetime evening news-watching audience it will create some obvious and subliminal impressions.

(1) Hindus are standing up for their religion
(2) they are doing so in a very gandhian and non-violent way

and subliminally,
(3) they will register the absence of AK-47 firing crowds chanting "death to Liz" etc.

Alok_N wrote:

Kumar wrote:If we should follow the scientific method, then puting a heavy presumption that gods/goddeses are figments of our imagination, is not justifiable. Let scientific method sort that out, if science must be the arbiter.

you are a pro at distorting what someone else has posted, and then refuting it ... where did this "figment of our imagination" phrase come from except as a figment of your imagination? ... where is the presumption?

what was posted in black and white was that gods were symbols invented by the sages to translate concepts into more available forms ...

Prabhu,

The phrase "symbols invented by the sages" means to me at least, that deities them selves are unreal, and were supposedly "invented" by the sages to convey some deeper truth.

I distilled something from the following posts into a "gods/goddesses are figments of our imagination" phrase . Whether it was unnecssarily mind swaying like Avram's Smirnoff or something sober, I leave that to your judgement.

Alok_N wrote:IMO, gods and godesses were invented as Thought Lite, i.e., as a technique for explaining complex concepts and cosmology ... protecting these symbols of the Thought while letting the Thought itself decay is not a wise course of action ...

Alok_N wrote:btw, if a yogi spends his life, say, worshipping Shiva and then one day he has a darshan of Shiva, my first guess would be that he went through some form of auto-suggestive hallucination ... why would that be a wrong guess?

Alok_N wrote:IMO, it is too late to put the genie back in the bottle and rewind the proliferation of gods and goddesses ...

Alok_N wrote:heck, on this very thread, several proponents of Hindu gods are not willing to give up attributes ... "by god, brahma has 4 arms" etc ...

---------------
Regarding Murugan's quote:

Alok_N wrote:Here is Murugan's post again ...

Murugan wrote:To understand Hinduism and Vedic concept of god, IMO the following may help:

1) Vedic (rituals)
2) Upanishadic Age (philsophical, theological exercises to find out the ultimate truth)
3) Vedanta (upto here god = ultimate truth)
Shankaracharya offered a mix of Gyan, Karma and Bhakti
4) Vaishnavism (incarnation theory started and then multitude of gods)
...

I don't know enough to tell whether this is accurate or not ... but according to him, up to step 3 there was no god/goddess proliferation ...

Gurudev, Rg-Veda is loaded with deities (Devas). Just because vedics didn't have temples and statues, and had only fire-rituals, doesn't mean that they didn't have Gods/Goddesses.

Indra, Varuna, Aryama, Agni, Usha, Prajapati, Yama, Ashwini, Rudra, Vishnu, Medha, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Devi and many others are there in the Rgveda. So, proliferation of the deities happened right at the first step IMHO.

Alok_N wrote:I don't disagree with that ... in fact, I believe that the deity proliferation needs to be exploited ... what we need are more modern deities ...

sun worship could be in the form of solar power ... we definitely need a god of nuclear energy ... you get the idea Smile

To my swayed mind, the above quote again suggests that you consider gods/goddeses as figments of imagination that can be created/reassigned as needed.

Om Shanti.

Sadler wrote: What this shows the world is that if an Indian believes his faith has been offended, he goes to court to sue the offender.

It will show that the court took due cognizance of the complaint.

Hindus stood up for their rights within the space provided by the Indian judicial system.

A whole lot of Israelis and Europeans routinely marry according to Hindu customs in India ( usually on the banks of the Pushkar Lake ), even though hardly any of them actually are Hindus.

What they are after is an "exotic" wedding, and colourful Indian wedding dresses coupled with the Vedic fire-ritual provide that exotica which a typical Victorian ceremony with "I do", or even a now-commonplace tropical-beach or drive-thru' wedding doesn't.

Why should this free publicity and pouring in of tourist dollars offend the "religious sensibility" of anyone ?

So Valkan for the uninitiated there are montheistic references in Hinduism prior to the advent of other faiths in India? Need you here to brnig some insight.

Shiv, The linkage of Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS to Mahatma's assasination sounded the death knell even if it was untrue.

The concept of monotheism (or to be more accurate pantheism- one can worship the all-encompassing in any way) is fairly well explained in the Katha Upanishad as well

Disclaimer- Advaita interpretation. I believe the same text is interpreted by Madava as well but am personally not familiar with that particular one

ramana wrote:
Shiv, The linkage of Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS to Mahatma's assasination sounded the death knell even if it was untrue.

It looks more like a planned smear campaign against the Hindu right before the Independence.

One information is that the bullet on Mahatma exited out of his front torso.
This can only be possible if the bullets are fired from behind his back.

Jagannath temple no entry
Thu, 2007-03-15 01:51

By Tukoji R. Pandit - Syndicate Features

The priests at Jagannath think a ‘white’ Christian cannot be converted to Hinduism. (They will never know if, say, a ‘brown’ Christian or a Muslim sneaks into the temple.) But temple priests in Orissa have a thing against foreigners, even if they happen to be VIPs, and they have a very different way of judging even one born a Hindu.

Indira Gandhi was stopped from stepping inside a temple because she had married a Parsi. At the Lingaraj temple at Bhubaneswar, a Thai princess was barred from entering in 2005 because she was a Buddhist.

url

welcome Valkan ... now, I can sit back and enjoy ...

Kumar, excuse me but if you are telling me that an invention is same as figment of imagination, here's what I suggest:

1. step back from your keyboard.
2. take a good long and hard look at it.
3. ask yourself whether it is an invention or a figment of your imagination?

according to you it could be both ... enough of this.

armenon wrote:

Murugan wrote: and not 33 crore (koti=type)

Thanks Murugan, I stand corrected. My mistake onlee. In my language Koti is Crore.

In my understanding, Koti means edge or point., highest point (exellence), or the highest number in the older number system (10 M).

I have never heard that "type" def.

ramana wrote:So Valkan for the uninitiated there are montheistic references in Hinduism prior to the advent of other faiths in India? Need you here to brnig some insight.

'Monotheism' as understood in the West differs from the 'Non-Dualism' of the Vedic compendium.

The Judeo-Christian Monotheism assigns agency to the 'theos', and the universe is a 'creation' from nothing ( ex nihilo ).

The Vedic Non-dualism is pan-theism, because Brahman is both the Upadana Karana and Nimitta Karana ( material and instrument cause ).

Shiv said

Can someone catalog what work the missionaries do?

A small case study from within my family circle. The person is a Tamilian Non-Brahmin middleclass. Educated through school and then through an ITI as an automobile technician. Works hard and progresses in life. Gets a job in a garage with Eastern Coalfields where his boss is a Bengali. His boss is pleased with his job. He becomes a part of the boss's family and marries his daughter.

A few years later, he has a medical problem and is temporarily paralized. A friend at his work pace, who happens to be christian, alerts his local church group. The church group deputes a priest who comes to his house Every day and sits by his bed. He tells this man every day that he is praying for him and surely Jesus would bless him.

In a few days, the temporary paralysis disappears. The man is overwhelmed. He converts to christianity. His wife follows him with her conversion. Now he stays away from every religious function within the rest of the family. His wife is strictly forbidden from accepting any prasad after any pooja. His child cannot have a Begali / Hindi / Tamil name.

The rest of the family does not badger him about his new faith but are hurt about his expressions of the rejection of his previous self.

Can one extrapolate the EJ factor from this case?

This is a good sociology case study. They have created the appropriate social response after a person convert to create a political, identity social group.

Alok,

Last post from me also in this vein.

All the records of sages' contact with a deity mention how vast the deity appeared to them and how much awe, humilty and wonder was instilled in the sage during that experience.

Hardly a response appropriate for a supposed "invention" by the said sage. I think you may be conflating "discovery" with "invention". Even scientific discoveries can create similar experiences but are definitely not in the same league as inventions. Inventions are deliberate creations, discoveries are uncovering of an already existent reality.

To Valkan's post above, that is the fundamental difference between SD and Christian/ Islam (not sure of Judaism but think that is where is comes from)- in these religions once CANNOT aspire to be one with God, whereas that is the fundamental precept of SD.

Another difference, in context to the previous posts by Alok_N, is that "religions" ask you to take them on their faith (eg heaven, hell, judgement day, etc etc) whereas SD enjoins you to experience the realization yourself. There need not be any faith, but the choice is left to the indvidual to choose any, or amongst, gyan, karma, bhakti.... whichever is felt most appropriate by the individual concerned

Fundamentally SD is is a very individualistic religion, and hence does not lend itself to organized structures a la Church.

At its core, and I have come across Hindus who disagree vehemently when I say this so perhaps my interpretation may be wrong, there is no concept of sin (and hence evil and punishment and heaven and hell) in Hinduism........ there are good deeds and bad deeds in the context of society, but these do not really matter in your realization towards sit-chit-anand/ nirvana/ moksha.

it is easier to realize that however, if your conduct is good...... good deeds foster good thoughts and hence promotes a state of well-being which makes one amenable to explore nirvana.... but that is an outcome of the social conditioning one is subject to, nothing to do with realization per se

This is a unique legacy (and at least I find the Upanishads to be very very logical and rational) and it would certainly be a loss to humanity's wellbeing were they to be lost......... and we are losing it. Out of the 200 or so original Upanishads, barely a 100 survive, and some of those not even completely

Adrija wrote:To Valkan's post above, that is the fundamental difference between SD and Christian/ Islam (not sure of Judaism but think that is where is comes from)- in these religions once CANNOT aspire to be one with God, whereas that is the fundamental precept of SD.

One has to be careful when one uses the Western term "God".

That carries a vastly different connotation from 'Brahman'.

There is no aspiration to be one with Brahman in Vedanta of SD aka Hinduism. This is neo-Vedanta, a flawed understanding of Vedanta.

You already are one with Brahman ( Tat Tvam Asi ), just as wave is non-different from water.

The aspiration is simply to eradicate the ignorance about who the Self is, with the purifying fire of knowledge.

When Jesus said "I and the Father are One", hardly any of his Jewish followers - steeped in monotheistic tradition - understood what the "I" in that statement meant, and took his words literally.

The reaction of the Islamic monotheists on the utterance of "Ana al Haqq" ( I am the Truth/Divine ) by Mansur al-Hallaj was just the opposite,- they beheaded him without exploring what he meant by "I".

That is the Supreme Ignorance ( Avidya ), and it is the eradication of that which is the aspiration of the Mumukshu ( one seeking "liberation" ).

..

Correct. My bad

careless usage of words.

It is ego which makes us think that our selves are different from Brahman. The examples given to illustate this, IIRC, was that of trhe potter and pot, and a thick cloth covering the light of a lamp which makes us think all is dark.... the cloth covering the lamp's light is ego

Anyways, my post was not to explore the finer aspects of SD, but more towards what is unique and worth saving

Simplification of concepts is key. Common man should be able to grasp & identify with these concepts easily. The key to the 'fast growth' of Islamism/EJism is that the key concepts are within easy grasp of the lowest common denominator.

For instance an example can be given thus, Eve was created when God took a bone from Adam's ribs. It can also be corroborated scientifically by saying Adam was XY and God took X chromosome from Adam and multiplied it with itself to create Eve XX. It is just that in the bible the bone metaphorically replaced the chromosome.

Thus concept of creation is sold/marketed.

S.Valkan wrote: You already are one with Brahman ( Tat Tvam Asi ), just as wave is non-different from water.

The aspiration is simply to eradicate the ignorance about who the Self is, with the purifying fire of knowledge.

Valkan, this is where I believe that science and Hindu Thought are the same, i.e., attempting to remove ignorance of self/physical reality ...

I just can't type the sizzling sentences like you ...

The reaction of the Islamic monotheists on the utterance of "Ana al Haqq" ( I am the Truth/Divine ) by Mansur al-Hallaj was just the opposite,- they beheaded him without exploring what he meant by "I".

this thread is not supposed to have ROFL stuff, but I am tempted here ...

Simplification already exists- all the gods and festivals are meant to highlight various concepts at a level of the indriyas- the 5 senses

Actually, one of the issues I had with this thread was precisely this- Bharat Rakshak should not be in the business of explaining religious concepts......... it should more focus on foreign-induced conversions, which is different from focusing on Christian or Islamic theology per se

Anyways, BRadmins supreme, so here we are on the 8th page

Bharat Rakshak should not be in the business of explaining religious concepts......... it should more focus on foreign-induced conversions

We should first know where we all stand on this topic, once that is established we all can carry forward together without any squabble.

First Know Thyself. Right?

Raju, my bad.......... I should not be cribbing about matters already decided, so this is my last post on this particular topic

it would be difficult to decide on what is defined by Hindu thought, as it is not a revealed theology...... one can find scriptures to justify practically any metaphysical thought in Indian/ Hindu/ SD thought. even the concepts as explained most notably by Valkan above actually are just ONE interpretation of the Upanishads

Over the course of time, whatever was justified on the basis of nyaya and tarka (justice and logic) was accepted.... so there is equal acceptance of Charvak as of Atheism as of Agnostism as of Dvaita as of Advaita... when even the Supreme Court of India has not been able to define what is now termed as the "Hindu" religion, I am not sure if we can. So it is very convenient to say- "what are you objecting to, if there is nothing which you know of to defend?"

I personally happen to think it is very suited for modern and rational life, as it does not ask you to believe, unlike the normal religions, but also try for yourself (in fact, it allows you to draw your own boundaries) but hey, that is my personal opinion.

That is NOT what I am propagating or defending

We are defending the freedom to think for OURSELVES, to decide for ourselves how we wish to experience God, or Brahman, or Nirvana, as the case may be......... drawing on what our forefathers (and mothers, there are at least two Upanishads I know which are supposed to have been written by women) did, OR NOT. But it is something which should not induced, particularly by money undermining the Indian nation.

The situation here is, we are saying that one should not interfere in that individual freedom to decide, and the answer is "tell me why we should? what is it that we are defending by saying that no one should interfere in that freedom?"

IOW, we are being forced to define what we mean by our freedom to think... and I find that objectionable on a conceptual level.
Hope I have worded it clearly enough...

Anyways, as I said, my last post on this particular issue

When we march, we march together, shoulder-to-shoulder...with each man ready to defend his brother.

Alok ji, how about ethics and science viz the ternary relationship with Hinduism.

1. Stem cells - it benefits man kind! ok?
2. body parts donation after death - We cremate, but parts of body gets used on other people and/or for research studies - ok?
3. abortion - ok? perhaps to save mother?
4. ultrasound for choosing babies - bad?
5. ...etc.

these are some of the partial evils of modernisms.

Adrija,

what you say is true ... when I refer to science and Hindu Thought, I am talking of Advaita ...

SaiK,

please see above ... I am talking of scientific thought ... the kind of issues you raise are how humanity handles technology derived from science ...

Dulicate Deleted

Acharya wrote:

ramana wrote:
Shiv, The linkage of Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS to Mahatma's assasination sounded the death knell even if it was untrue.

It looks more like a planned smear campaign against the Hindu right before the Independence.

One information is that the bullet on Mahatma exited out of his front torso.
This can only be possible if the bullets are fired from behind his back.

One Old man once told me Saffrfom flags were all over India after 47 and common Indian disliked Kangressi because of partition and bloodshed . Gandhi's assasination shifted the public opinion in favour of Chacha and his group.
We were put on the wrong track from the beginning.

what are we discussing, can we scope it? is it science and hinduism or how to protect hinduism against attacks in various forms (other religion, science & tech, modernism, etc).

there is a lot of angst regarding this thread ... Shiv has explained that it is something of a free for all that should result in some answers and some questions ... focus will happen once the thrashing about is exhausted ...

IMO, it is a refreshing experiment to occasionally move away from constrained threads to allow ideas to develop ...

S.Valkan wrote:

Adrija wrote:To Valkan's post above, that is the fundamental difference between SD and Christian/ Islam (not sure of Judaism but think that is where is comes from)- in these religions once CANNOT aspire to be one with God, whereas that is the fundamental precept of SD.

One has to be careful when one uses the Western term "God".

That carries a vastly different connotation from 'Brahman'.

There is no aspiration to be one with Brahman in Vedanta of SD aka Hinduism. This is neo-Vedanta, a flawed understanding of Vedanta.

You already are one with Brahman ( Tat Tvam Asi ), just as wave is non-different from water.

The aspiration is simply to eradicate the ignorance about who the Self is, with the purifying fire of knowledge.

When Jesus said "I and the Father are One", hardly any of his Jewish followers - steeped in monotheistic tradition - understood what the "I" in that statement meant, and took his words literally.

The reaction of the Islamic monotheists on the utterance of "Ana al Haqq" ( I am the Truth/Divine ) by Mansur al-Hallaj was just the opposite,- they beheaded him without exploring what he meant by "I".

That is the Supreme Ignorance ( Avidya ), and it is the eradication of that which is the aspiration of the Mumukshu ( one seeking "liberation" ).

Mrig Trishna, we already have the essense but looking for it in outwardly because of Avidya, ignornace .Dont need no God .

shiv wrote:Hindus are good only at complaining and recognizing demons - not at action

Shivji

Very fiery speech - befitting BR. For people who work in trenches, this is all too familiar though.

In the roar of your fiery speech however the point that I have made 3-4 times and which keeps getting lost is that this conversion business is unfortunately not related to some fine theological argument or garibi-hatao-sloganeering. This is about power, money, state patronage etc.

But all that is idle talk. You are right we need some action, show us some action boss..

Adrija wrote: Another difference, in context to the previous posts by Alok_N, is that "religions" ask you to take them on their faith (eg heaven, hell, judgement day, etc etc)

There is nothing wrong with faith, if it works for you.

Shraddha(Faith) and Bhakti(Devotion) is extremely helpful for most people.

Also, original Judaism hardly has the concept of sin, hell etc.

Judaism only differentiates between what is "lawful" and what is "unlawful" according the compedium of 613 Mitzvot laws that the successors of Moses codified into the Torah, and Rambam/Mimonides compiled in Andalusia.

The concepts of sin, hell are latter innovations of the Churchianity in Christian tradition, and then Islam.

The difference between Abrahamic Monotheism and Hinduism is when faith is not an option, and you seek a rational explanation.

In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, you become an "apostate", "heretic" or an "atheist".

In Hinduism, if the Tantric mode of worshipVigraha, Yantra and Mantra doesn't work for you, you can take the next step in the ladder, and ask deeper questions. And the best part, there are answers to those questions.

repeat, del

Didn't say that it was anything wrong, actually......... it is also an equally valid part to God/ Brahman, as per Shankara in fact (Bhaja Govindam, IIRC)

Was not aware that sin is not a Judaic concept, thanks for that info... don't know much about Judaism in fact, need to correct that sometime hopefully soon

Adrija wrote:it is also an equally valid part to God/ Brahman, as per Shankara in fact (Bhaja Govindam, IIRC)

That is a neo-Vedanta concept as well.

In Vedantic tradition, the usefulness of Bhakti and Karma are like the usefulness of pot and water in cooking rice.

They are necessary in different quantities for the quantity of rice involved ( the mental capacity of the person ).

Without the fire of knowledge, however, the real step (cooking) is never possible.

Jnana/knowledge is that crucial final step that liberates one from ignorance.

There I differ from you