Difference between Sanatan Dharam & Arya Samaji?

[Gaura Priya]

where i have said that, oh beloved Royal?

I was talking about nameless's post.

 

[adi_149]

few of my friends was very active for IRF, they have exactly the same opinion on hinduism as you have.

As far as my thoughts are concerned... my opinions match IRF's and hence i listen to their lectures and understand things better, coz after all they proved that Hinduism is not really what it seems to be if u see the practicing Hindus. I agree they have the right to do so and its a part of Hinduism, but Im more interested to know the Hinduism that existed at the time when Vedas were revealed, coz no doubt at that time what people used to practice was actually the aim of the revelation i.e., The Vedas. As far as your friends are concerned, maybe they are active for IRF coz maybe even their initial opinions match IRF's.

 

[Gaura Priya]

As far as my thoughts are concerned... my opinions match IRF's and hence i listen to their lectures and understand things better, coz after all they proved that Hinduism is not really what it seems to be if u see the practicing Hindus. I agree they have the right to do so and its a part of Hinduism, but Im more interested to know the Hinduism that existed at the time when Vedas were revealed, coz no doubt at that time what people used to practice was actually the aim of the revelation i.e., The Vedas. As far as your friends are concerned, maybe they are active for IRF coz maybe even their initial opinions match IRF's.

I listened to some of Zakir Naik's lecture on Hinduism. He ignored that Vaishnavism has been the oldest form of monotheism on the planet. :no:

 

[nameless]

I was talking about nameless's post.

which post?

 

[Gaura Priya]

which post?

Submitting to God is part of Vaishnava Dharma!

In Vaishnava Dharma, prapatti, atma-nivedanam...

Sarva-dharman parityajya
Mam ekam sharanam vraja...

:bow:

If that's not surrender, then I don't know what Vaishnava Dharma is.

 

[adi_149]

I listened to some of Zakir Naik's lecture on Hinduism. He ignored that Vaishnavism has been the oldest form of monotheism on the planet. :no:

I personally believe that God has no image, nor is he a male. thats why I refer to God as "param-aatma". Param = Supreme, Aatma = Soul (sould has no body, no image, and we dont know how a soul looks like). Therefore when Vaishnavism believes in Vishnu, it also give it a form, of a human with many upper limbs and male. Vishnu being a sustainer and all the descriptions about him that he is the Supreme God head and stuff i can accept, but when it says that Vishnu has a wife... this is something not acceptable to me, coz we humans need wife to be with and to become eachother's support on this planet. why does God need wives and children?? therefore Vishnu as described in the Puranas is not what i believe to be God... or Paramaatma

 

[nameless]

Submitting to God is part of Vaishnava Dharma!

In Vaishnava Dharma, prapatti, atma-nivedanam...

Sarva-dharman parityajya
Mam ekam sharanam vraja...

:bow:

If that's not surrender, then I don't know what Vaishnava Dharma is.

yes royal, submission is a path for a few, sanatana dharma is not just vaishnava dharma, there are other schools too.

quoting below the post you talking about

i think this is not true for hinduism, Submitting will to god is just another way to drop desires or attachment.

 

[nameless]

As far as my thoughts are concerned... my opinions match IRF's and hence i listen to their lectures and understand things better, coz after all they proved that Hinduism is not really what it seems to be if u see the practicing Hindus. I agree they have the right to do so and its a part of Hinduism, but Im more interested to know the Hinduism that existed at the time when Vedas were revealed, coz no doubt at that time what people used to practice was actually the aim of the revelation i.e., The Vedas.

thanks for explaining in detail, adi ....
and i appreciate your move to seek about hinduism from hindus itself.

 

[nameless]

I personally believe that God has no image, nor is he a male. thats why I refer to God as "param-aatma". Param = Supreme, Aatma = Soul (sould has no body, no image, and we dont know how a soul looks like). Therefore when Vaishnavism believes in Vishnu, it also give it a form, of a human with many upper limbs and male.

adi, it is true that god is beyond forms, names and places, but still we call him by different names, allah, brahman, vishnu etc

in the same manner we assign a name to god who is beyond name for the sake of worship, the same manner some people use forms to worship the god who is beyond form. Pardon me if this explanation appears to be non-sense.

 

[adi_149]

in the same manner we assign a name to god who is beyond name for the sake of worship, the same manner some people use forms to worship the god who is beyond form. Pardon me if this explanation appears to be non-sense.

surely this explanation is not non-sense. Its just how people are, and u r right abt it, there are many people who do not mind giving shape to a shapeless being. I do not find this to be a good thing coz its like saying or believing that water (H2O) has two hands and a tail and a beard, when we "know" that it is shapeless and it takes the shape of the object we put it into. Still if a person just for his/her satisfaction wants to believe that water has two hands along with a tail and a beard then its totally upto that person.... but it is important to understand that what that particular person is believing is not the "truth"... and according to me, when we all know that God doesnt have a form then putting it into a form and worshipping that piece of matter is unreal. Coz 99% of the people who pray to the idols do not actually pray to the God above, but believe that the idol itself is God.. which makes no sense. Coz if something happens to the Idol, for example if it falls and breaks or breaks due to any reason... they feel hurt that their God is damaged? and pick up the idol and kiss it and stuff.... if they actually believe that God is not in there and is up above... then they should just replace the idol and not be sad... coz nothing in this universe can actually damage God...

I know im explaining all this in too much detail, but i think its imp to understand how people actually act and believe in.

 

[Breathe]

Coz 99% of the people who pray to the idols do not actually pray to the God above, but believe that the idol itself is God..

I can safely say that almost nobody believes God is the "idol", at least from my encounters. Some may say that God "uses" the murti (I don't like the use of the term idol. I find it to be a very offensive term, and it's saddening to see many Hindus using it. I prefer murti or icon.) so people can worship Him, but very few people, except the most superstitious few, believe that God is the statue. Some think it may reside in or embody it, though.

for example if it falls and breaks or breaks due to any reason... they feel hurt that their God is damaged?

No, of course not. This is something commonly said by aniconists, often Muslims and Christians, but it's not true. Ask almost any Sanatani: "If I smash a murti of your God, have I hurt Him?" "No." "Then what have I done?" "You have smashed a murti." "What have I done to God?" "Nothing."

To me, though, smashing an icon is just disrespectful, because to me, it is doing something you would do to God if you could. For example, smashing an icon of God is like saying you would hurt or even kill God if you could, because of a difference in views.

When it comes to it falling over, it means nothing: it broke. A beautiful representation of God is damaged.

Besides, many people don't believe Ganesha actually has an elephant head, either. Only the more folkish, super-literalistic Hindus believe that. Many see them as metaphors from my experience, and the head has symbolic meaning and so on.

After all, a murti is just a telephone for those who require one, in effect.

Of course, Arya Samaj don't have this problem as they don't use any, but I think they are very nice for those who wish to use them. Some people prefer the Formless view of God, and others prefer the Formed view of God.


This fool's two cents.

 

[nameless]

surely this explanation is not non-sense. Its just how people are, and u r right abt it, there are many people who do not mind giving shape to a shapeless being. I do not find this to be a good thing coz its like saying or believing that water (H2O) has two hands and a tail and a beard, when we "know" that it is shapeless and it takes the shape of the object we put it into. Still if a person just for his/her satisfaction wants to believe that water has two hands along with a tail and a beard then its totally upto that person.... but it is important to understand that what that particular person is believing is not the "truth"..

.

didn't i already answered for this, adi? all believers use name for god who has no name, is not that wrong?

 

[Atman]

Namaste Adi.

surely this explanation is not non-sense. Its just how people are, and u r right abt it, there are many people who do not mind giving shape to a shapeless being. I do not find this to be a good thing coz its like saying or believing that water (H2O) has two hands and a tail and a beard, when we "know" that it is shapeless and it takes the shape of the object we put it into.

Water is an inanimate object though. There are living organisms in water, but the substance itself is not living, nor does it have a consciousness. God on the other hand is a personal being to those who endow him with a form. I agree that at the highest level God is formless, but he endows a form (or perhaps rather men give him form) so as to help make a personal relationship with him easier. Do you believe in a personal God, or do you view God as being exclusively some sort of impersonal substance?

Edit:

And yes prabhu, Islam is a good religion... apparently Muhammad is found mentioned in the Bhavishya Purana, and the Vaishnavas accept Him as a shaktyavesha-avatara, an empowered Messenger of Lord Vishnu.

Bhavishya Purana speaks about Muhammad in a fairly degrading manner (mind you this is clearly an interpolation), not a positive one. Also, only the ISKCON portion of Gaudiya Vaishnavas view Muhammad as being a shaktyavesha avatar of Vishnu,most Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't , let alone most Vaishnavas (though there is a small Vaishnava sect in Gujarat called Krishna Pranami Dharma, which also holds Muhammad in high esteem).

 

[zenzero]

Friend Atman,

only the ISKCON portion of Gaudiya Vaishnavas view Muhammad as being a shaktyavesha avatar of Vishnu,most Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't , let alone most Vaishnavas (though there is a small Vaishnava sect in Gujarat called Krishna Pranami Dharma, which also holds Muhammad in high esteem).

If the reverse is not true i.e. idf Muhammad also accepted that *allah* is the same as *Brahman* then surely the view held by Iskon devotees as TRUTH however if that is not the case then it is only an *imagination* of their own and no where near to TRUTH!

Love & rgds

 

[Atman]

If the reverse is not true i.e. idf Muhammad also accepted that *allah* is the same as *Brahman* then surely the view held by Iskon devotees as TRUTH however if that is not the case then it is only an *imagination* of their own and no where near to TRUTH!

Love & rgds

Sounds logical. I don't think Arabia had the concept of a supreme God like Vishnu at the time, so many Vaishnavas would argue that is why Muhammad came to give monotheism to Arabia. At any rate I don't believe such claims myself, and whether others do or not means very little to me.Even though I don't adhere to the idea that Muhammad was an empowered individual, I don't have a problem with the idea either.

 

[Prabh Preet]

Hi Adi_149,
I am impressed from your investigative style of revelation of faith. But my dear friend you are strong believer of Islam but pretending to be different! Which you are not regardless of fact that you might be born in Hindu family. I am not supporting anyone else to contradict with you but I simply believe that one should be clear about ones identity and views regardless of the differences!

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. when we "know" that it is shapeless and it takes the shape of the object we put it into. .. when we all know that God doesnt have a form then putting it into a form and worshipping that piece of matter is unreal.

Oh, Adi _149 puts God in objects whose shape God takes. Well, Sanatani Hindus also put God in the shape of idols and God takes that shape. Why should Adi (if he was here) protest against it? I also do not know what makes Adi_149 so sure about even the existence of God!