a most interesting post , ....coments plaese

[ratikala]

namaskaram

reading through some old posts I came across this post which struck me as very interesting , ....

Please do not trust wiki. It is unreliable. I do not read opinion of theosophists and westerners.

British East India co had setup Asiatic society with 34 members including Wilson, Jones, Bopp AND Max Mulller as their highly paid agents to demean our shastras.

Throughout the life they collected manuscripts and projected in a convoluted way. they corrupted our puranas like changing date of chandragupta maurya as a contemporary of Alexander. they changed grihya sutra, and some parts of vedas to attest meat eating. For the whole life they didnt write anything about christianity.

They forged fake coins to prove their theory of dating of Chandragupta maurya. They faked a new concept of Aryan invasion theory and also degraded status of sanskrit,. they invented another root language from which sanskrit derived it's words. they called it as 'proto-indo-euro-language'. when Narayan Shastry raised voice against them, they destroyed his 20 years of research. a year after Narayan Shastri died.

you can find this with authentic proofs, in the book
The True History and the Religion of India: A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism
H.D. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati

He was awarded title of dharma chakravarti.

I am not so interested in starting an 'Aryan Invasion Theory ' debate ,
I am more interested in peoples thoughts on .....

Some articles are available online here.

though in the beginning you may find it boring, later on it is interesting.

Wiki page about Adi Shankara contains opinion of B.N.K. Sharma, a dvaitin and a pundit who has been honoured titles by dvaita matha. It goes without saying that B.N.K. Sharma does not like advaita and has spoken against it.

personaly I usualy avoid Wikipedia as an authority allthough for me it is a fantastic tool if used as a spell check

Please read commentaries by Adi shankara and then come to a conclusion. Vaishnavas will pick some words, twist them, as if they do not want to understand and then project them in not-so-good way. At times they interpret advaita from their siddhantic POV and come to a conclusion that advaita is illogical.

even as a Vaisnava I am totaly against this kind of behavior , we must respect each others sampradayas

If you wish to understand siddhanta, then please understand it from authentic sources or sit at the feet of Guru. Google pramAna is not a pramaaNa

Thats why I do not much interfere into other sampradAyas.

and again I agree entirely if we truely wish to follow a tradition then we should seek out a respected Guru as it is vital that there is some overseeer to point us in the right direction and to stop us from un nececary diviation and speculation.

Hari OM

Jai Jai , .....Hari OM

Blessings to you @Amrut ji thank you for this interesting link

 

[StarryNightshade]

I'm going to possibly sound ignorant, but what exactly did you want comments on? The fact that Wikipedia isn't a great source? The fact that we should respect other samparadayas and not twist words to fit an agenda? The fact that we shouldn't trust everything we read on Google/the internet?

Or am I missing something?

 

[George-ananda]

Well, I for one am an interested student of all things paranormal and it is a well known problem recognized by many parapsychologists that Wikipedia articles on such topics have been overly edited by the hard-core skeptical community.

There once was pretty fair objectivity in the articles but then the articles got changed as this phenomena on Wikipedia emerged.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My comments here: Help me to Understand Advaita | Page 4 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Starry ji

I'm going to possibly sound ignorant, but what exactly did you want comments on?

this morning there seemd to be a lack of interesting new posts so I looked on one of the older posts at the bottom of the page , ...

Amrut ji's post contained a link to a very interesting website ,

originaly posted by Amrut ,.....

some articles are available online here.

if link dosent work see original post , ....

the introduction reads , .....


''Divine Scriptures''

''The religion of Bharatvarsh (Hinduism) is the direct descension of the Grace of God which is manifested in the form of the Divine Bhartiya (Hindu) scriptures. They reveal the total philosophy of each and every aspect of God and the creation of this universe, and, at the same time, they also reveal the process of God realization with all the necessary informations,''


I was hoping that others would enjoy to read these beautifull and important words from a true devotee of Sanatana Dharma , ...
Personaly I think we spend too much time on this site debating philosopical veiwpoints and dwelling upon who is proported to have defeated whom , .....and whos Philosophy reigns supreme , ....

I only had a short time to read it this morning but I will return to read more this evening , ....

I think the whole point Amrut was trying to make was that we canot rely upon some histories (particularlt those Translated from an interlectual veiw point) or upon much content available on the net , ...so we have to return to the source , to the feet of true Swamis and fully surrendered souls who are able to lovingly transmit the innermeanings of the Vedic shastra'a, ....

The fact that Wikipedia isn't a great source? The fact that we should respect other samparadayas and not twist words to fit an agenda? The fact that we shouldn't trust everything we read on Google/the internet?

Or am I missing something?

in the notes on the author His Divinity Swami Prakashanand Saraswati , it says .......

''It was the descension of Shree Radha's Grace that only in a year’s time such an extensive Divine work, “The True History and the Religion of India,” was produced by Shree Swamiji which contacts all the important aspects of Sanatan Dharm (Hinduism) with logical, scriptural, scientific, philosophical and historical evidences.''

it is important that we understand the humility and beauty with which this is written , .....how many times do you hear it said by any author that his works have happened by the divine Grace of the lord , ...(or in this case the Grace of Srimati Radharani , ...this makes me think that it is well worth carefull reading , ....

prehaps we could read and discuss ?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram George Ananda ji

Well, I for one am an interested student of all things paranormal and it is a well known problem recognized by many parapsychologists that Wikipedia articles on such topics have been overly edited by the hard-core skeptical community.

presonaly I tend to agree not that my knowledge of parapsychology is that great , but the secular and scientific do appear to predominate even in areas of religious faith anf beliif , and for my liking too much is dismilled as mere mythology , ....

There once was pretty fair objectivity in the articles but then the articles got changed as this phenomena on Wikipedia emerged.

in so many places I see the same scepticism extended to so many aspects of faith , to me it is no more than I would expect , ...as unfortunatly such is the nature of Maya , that all is reduced to a one dimentional level of analasis and understanding .

 

[ratikala]

My comments here: Help me to Understand Advaita | Page 4 | ReligiousForums.com

Amrut said: ↑
Please do not trust wiki. It is unreliable. I do not read opinion of .. Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism H.D. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati

That makes for a chauvinist, Hindu Mahasabhait Akahand Bharatiya Hindu. In this 21st Century such views are not appropriate, just as those propagated by what has come to be known as Batra Brigade. Hindu school system will also become a butt of jokes as the Pakistani school system is, doctoring history. We should desist from it.

To me this just illustrates the huge difference between the Sanatana Dharmi who realises his eternal nature , ......and the agnostic who identifies with the 21st century and the body that experiences it .

Amrut said: ↑
The thing is that our intellect should be used in a way that it increases our devotion.

Our intellect should be used for only one purpose, that is finding truth. Any other purpose does not equal that.

and again here the mind of a devotee being entirely missunderstood , ....
when the ultimate truth is finaly realised devotion and reverence is ineveitable , ....

well at leat in my Humble oppinion it can be no other way

 

[Aupmanyav]

To me this just illustrates the huge difference between the Sanatana Dharmi who realises his eternal nature, ..and the agnostic who identifies with the 21st century and the body that experiences it.

Ratiben, I would like the Sanatan Dharmis also to live in 21st Century, and not in the 7th Century as the Islamic State wants to do.

and again here the mind of a devotee being entirely missunderstood , ....
when the ultimate truth is finaly realised devotion and reverence is ineveitable, ..

A devotee finds a God. Other people may find other things. Buddha did not find a God. Sankara found the inscrutable Brahman. Different people will find different things. And IMHO, Hinduism recognizes this.

".. And, too, none of them has seen Brahma face to face nor has even the ancestor seven generations back of one of their teachers. Nor could any of the early sages say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahma appears. Does not what these Brahmins declare turn out to be ill-founded?” (Tevijja Sutta)

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Ratiben, I would like the Sanatan Dharmis also to live in 21st Century, and not in the 7th Century as the Islamic State wants to do.

with the most kind due respects I am not suggesting living in the 7th century , .....look , ..look here, this Sanatan Dharmi is using computer technology , ....talking to a person or persons half way around the globe , ....no I am not against the 21st century , nor am I solely attatched to it , ......it is just that my body finds it self here at this present moment ! ....but I am an eternal being I do not belong to the 7th century or the 21st , ...I dont even belong to this body

A devotee finds a God. Other people may find other things. Buddha did not find a God. Sankara found the inscrutable Brahman. Different people will find different things. And IMHO, Hinduism recognizes this.

true a devotee sees god everywhere , this vision of god eclipses material nature , it eclipses the 7th and the 21st centuries , the devotee is not blind to the fact that his /her body resides there but it is not of paramount importance . the dwelling house merely protects one from the elements and provides for ones temporary needs , we use its facilities , ....when the House becomes too small or its walls start to crubble we move on , ....we live there but we are not the house .

Other people as you say are free to perceive as they will and to speak as they will , True Hinduism recognises this . ....but if you wish to speak of Lord Buddha then it must be said that he simply did not speak of God , .....Lord Buddha was and still is a teacher of infinate kindness whos compassion motivated him to teach according to the mind and the needs of the people before him , thus he taught the antidote to human suffering , one does not have to speak of God if knowledge of God is not the answer to the problem at hand , what Lord Buddha saught to do was liberate beings from the realms of suffering by breaking their attatchment , ....attatchment to the body , attatchment to the prevailing century , attatchment to the prevailing missconceptions , ...

... And, too, none of them has seen Brahma face to face nor has even the ancestor seven generations back of one of their teachers. Nor could any of the early sages say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahma appears. Does not what these Brahmins declare turn out to be ill-founded?” (Tevijja Sutta)

a person may beleive this to be so because they expect Brahma ( do you mean Brahma or Brahman ?) ...to have a face that conforms to our limited conception of a face , when in truth if we are speaking about God , he has many faces and will appear to the devotee in a form that befits the devotees comprehension , ....in truth the supreme is limitless he may act and appear as he pleases , ....and will do so at the behest of his devotee, ....

​

 

[Aupmanyav]

true a devotee sees god everywhere, this vision of god eclipses material nature, ..
( do you mean Brahma or Brahman ?)

Ratiben, to an advaitist, all material is Brahman (Sarva khalu idam Brahma - All things here are Brahman), without any distinction.
IMHO, Buddha was talking about the existence of Brahma, the God.

 

[ratikala]

nanaskaram Aupmanyav ji

Ratiben, to an advaitist, all material is Brahman (Sarva khalu idam Brahma - All things here are Brahman), without any distinction.

jai jai I have no dispute with that as each will understand this from a different perspective , ...what I am saying is that we all identify differently , to me dosent matter if one is born in the 7th century , 21st century best not to get too hung up on it it is only our temporary material position , ....eventualy one realises ones true nature whether that means to merge or to remain in constant partial seperation as the servitor of the Supreme , ...dosent matter that is your choice , ...

IMHO, Buddha was talking about the existence of Brahma, the
God.[/QUOTE]

not that I wish to shoot you down , as I do not , ....how and where do you see Lord Buddha eluding to Brahma?

do you mean Brahma A God , or do you mean God as in supreme God ? ...

and as this is not a thread intended to upset Advaitins , Buddhists or Vaisnavas we can just simply discuss traditional and historical sources we dont even have to agree , it is just interesting (and I hope instructive) to learn some of the beleifs and teachings that were comonplace before the interlectual homogenisation of Hinduism by the likes of Max Muller , ....

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have very clearly said that IMHO, Buddha was talking about Brahma, the God; and not Brahman. See my post # 10. Buddha did not believe in the existence of Brahman or any other thing, since he considered all as Indra-jaala, without substance (Anatta), and transitory (Anicca). Sure, people talk about Buddha-dhatu, Bodhi-kaaya, Tathagatagarbha, Dhamma-kaaya, etc., but that is not the concept of Brahman as in Hinduism.