In Addition to: "Shaktism, only for Siddhis"; Westernization of Hinduism; Alienation; TANTRA

[Asha]

don't be so harsh on Duryodhana.

Namaste,

No, No, we must not be harsh on poor Duryodhana !
He only tried to have poor mother Kunti and the entire Pandava family burnt in the House of Lac, .....

Were it not for the loyalty of Vidura the Pandavas would have perished .

Is this justifyable Kshatriya behavior ? or is this eveil ?

Jai Sree Krishna

 

[Chakra]

Namaste,

No, No, we must not be harsh on poor Duryodhana !
He only tried to have poor mother Kunti and the entire Pandava family burnt in the House of Lac, .....

Were it not for the loyalty of Vidura the Pandavas would have perished .

Is this justifyable Kshatriya behavior ? or is this eveil ?

Jai Sree Krishna

He also told Dushashan to disrobe Draupadi.

 

[Asha]

He also told Dushashan to disrobe Draupadi.

Thank you Prabhu ji

In fact there are so many adharmic and dispicable behaviors committed by Duryodhana,

like arranging a loaded game of dice, and that is just the beginning.


Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Chakra]

Didn't say that, but thanks for strawmanning me. I think emic and etic approaches are both required for a proper understanding. One of the shortfalls of the emic accounts is that they tend to uncritically accept things which are held to be true by tradition, or which are religiously sacrosanct. This is one such instance of that.

No, you didn't explicitly say that. But aren't you trying to say that because they were traditionalists and "faithful", that they were biased?

Vedanta is an evolving philosophy. Vedantins don't "uncritically accept things". In fact, Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva probably went against the normal traditions of their day. Simply saying that they were faithful and thus biased shows an unwillingness to not analyse. No commentator of the Mahabharata has claimed that the Mahabharata was a product of several centuries. Are you smarter than Madhvacharya?

Panini only codified the original Vedic grammar. He didn't concoct things in the sense that you understand. All Vedantins have used Panini's grammar to interpret the Vedas and Upanishads, then why not Gita and Mahabharata?

Regards

 

[atanu]

I will request this thread to be moved out of DIR.

 

[4consideration]

***Mod Post***​

This thread has been moved from the Hinduism DIR
to Same Faith Debates.​

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

…lol, I'll lol wherever I please! I'm a free soul.

I am astika , you are Nastika from what I can gather , ...you beleive you are a free soul , I beleive that all souls are eternal and intrinsicaly linked .

you deal in material evidence , I find material evidence interesting but not of extreme importance .

I'm listening and responding with facts, statistics, and evidence. You are the one who is refusing to engage, and continue to make assertions without backing them up. As for my age, well I could turn that around and say. "You are too old and possibly senile to address young people with virile healthy brains." But thats just ageism. Address the facts, don't try and discredit the person presenting them.

I am not refusing to engage with you I have allready pointed out that we think live and exist in two different realms .....this is the problem between astika and nastika schools of thought , the faith of one is gained through insight and experience, the other through constructed reasoning , ...

my dear young man your youthfull exuberance is admirable as is the exuberance of all youth , but there are benifits which come with age ....and before you think to suggest that others are too senile to address your virile and healthy brain , ...think of the wisdom of your elders and who have taken the responcibility to teach you , and please remember one day you will age , will you become stupified and unworthy of a fair hearing ???

Not true. Buddha and Buddhist texts explicitly reject God on numerous occasions. The following link compiles some of those instances.

The Buddha EXPLICITLY Rejected God (Proof) - NewBuddhist

unfortunately these ''new Buddhists'' have some what re ajusted the actual word of the Buddha to suit their own understanding , it happens , you know this , you are only too keen to tell me that some versions of the Gita have been given a different slant ....

if you want the word of Buddha do not go to new Buddhists go back and study the original teachings , these new buddhists are not so different from the Neo Hindus that you apear to dispise .

I sort of agree with you actually. A person experiencing a higher state of consciousness probably won't care about the age of books. But that doesn't mean that they know the age of books as a consequence of looking into their heart, which is your original claim.

I am touched that you even begin to agree , but I was never suggesting that one looks in the heart and one finds the age of a book ! I think I did say the age of the text or when it was written is immaterial it is the content which maters , and it is the understanding and appreciation of that content which is to be found in the heart .

Like many many Hindus throughout history, I reject mayavada, or at least the standard interpretation of it. The material universe is real, divine, and I intend to know it by all the means available.

this is where youthfull exuberance thinks that it can be found by avidly aquiring and devouring knowledge , but it is not what you can aquire , but how you assimilate knowledge that converts that knowledge into wisdom .

I agree. I don't think that being influenced by the English made him less poignant. Again, there is the assumption here that English influence is inherently bad, and if it existed would lead to a dulling in Gandhi's thought.

I am not sure that he was influenced by the english , more that he gained experience by having been able to observe the english system , I beleive he very astutely took what he beleived to be benificial from his experiences , ....this is something a litle different from influence .

Much of what you say comes across as arrogant as well. Especially when you talk down to me because of my age, and say that you have the truth and I'd see it except I'm too ignorant and arrogant, and if only I had as much faith as you and prayed as hard as you I'd realize the truth. Thats an incredibly arrogant attitude, made even more grating by this front of false humility.

I would talk to you like this what ever your age , because you are forcefull with your opinion ...therefore I am forcefull in return . but I have never said that I posess the truth and that you are ignorant , ...
I had said that we are poles apart in our beleifs and that I dont expect you to understand me , ....

it is because I am chalenging you that it grates , not because of what you mistakenly see as false humility ....
in your case I am making no attempt at humility , I am probably being some what short tempered and I am treating you with some degree of contempt because I have not taken kindly to some things you have said , ....but at the same time I am trying to find a level on which to have a ballanced conversation ....

But yeah I completely agree that it isn't the Britishers who are wholly to blame. Many Hindus uncritically abandoned their logical, rational, naturalistic traditions in favor of the Neo-Hinduism which uses faith as a crutch to support false revisionist history, and that is a shame.
[/quote

we canot escape the fact that the world is constantly changing ,... the nature of people has changed dramaticaly with the onset of Kali yuga (as it has within all yugas)...peoples beleifs and capacity for adherance to their indiginous cultures have also changed , this has happened because their conditions constantly change , ... where they suffer instability they develop desires , so their attraction also changes to different practices as a means of ataining stability . in other words , ... a mans conditions change , ... his needs change , ...his behavior changes .

where you say that is a shame , ...in some respects this is true , ....but the Buddha taught very wisely when he spoke of the nature of imperminance .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

I've read probably around 80-90% of the total volume of the Mahabharata. Most of the crucial sections in the Purushottama Lal translation which has a very good reputation. Still working on the last 10% Can you say the same?

I like to read it in full once a year which I have probably done for the past eleven years (that is since we have lived in this house ) and I probably read it a few times before mooving here ,

then I read a little of the Gita every day , I took vows to do so many years ago .

My comments are not assumptions. Ironically, your assumption that they are assumptions is an assumption. They are based on a study of the text as well as the secondary literature, the Manu Smriti, and other works. They could be incorrect analyses (in which case show me how) but they are not assumed. If you don't believe me look at the citations in the two articles I wrote on Duryodhana:

Playing Duryodhana

Duryodhana II: Hated by the World « Videshi Sutra

if you wish I will read them then we will discuss ?

You are right in one sense--- that Duryodhdna was greedy, avaricious, power hungry, and rejected Krishna. Do I deny any of this? I simply say that he had his own Dharma to follow-- an archaic warrior morality in which these were not vices. One of the moral lessons of the Mahabharata is that Duryodhana's Dharma is inferior to Krishna's.

I would prefer to say that he neglected his Kshatriya Dharma , but yes this is the moral lesson one is to endeavour to follow the higher Dharma rather than follow the dictates of ones karma .

where you speak of ''an archaic warrior morality in which these were not vices'' I canot accept this because it was the self serving motivation behind his actions that render his actions adharmic , however were his motives that of selfless service his actions would have been permissable in the correct situation .

 

[ratikala]

Jai jai, Ratikalaben, don't be so harsh on Duryodhana.

Questions and Answers on Baladeva Tattva | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

Please remember, Hinduism has no Satan.

jai jai but it has dharma and adharma Ravan and Hiranyakasipu , ...not to mention others :yes:

 

[von bek]

unfortunately these ''new Buddhists'' have some what re ajusted the actual word of the Buddha to suit their own understanding , it happens , you know this , you are only too keen to tell me that some versions of the Gita have been given a different slant ....

if you want the word of Buddha do not go to new Buddhists go back and study the original teachings , these new buddhists are not so different from the Neo Hindus that you apear to dispise .

When you look at the Sutta Pitaka, it is clear that the Buddha denies a First Cause. There are devas, but they grow old and die just like humans do. I didn't get this idea from reading modern books on Buddhism, it comes from the oldest texts.

 

[atanu]

When you look at the Sutta Pitaka, it is clear that the Buddha denies a First Cause. There are devas, but they grow old and die just like humans do. I didn't get this idea from reading modern books on Buddhism, it comes from the oldest texts.

This exactly exemplifies the most common problem.

A lack of understanding of Sanskrit or Pali has led to some translations that mislead people into thinking that Buddha taught Nihilism, that there was no First cause.

That is not what actual Buddhists believe, however. I quote a small portion from a famous article.

Zen for Americans: The God-Conception of Buddhism

One of the most fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that all the multitudinous and multifarious phenomena in the universe start from, and have their being in, one reality which itself has "no fixed abode," being above spatial and temporal limitations. ........

Contrary to assertion of von Bek, an actual Buddhist here says that that the multifarious phenomenon indeed have one transcendental realty.......

The problem has arisen because westerners recognise only the manifest awareness, called vijnana, as Consciousness. They do not intuit the un-manifest prajnana, as the root of all Consciousness.

this subject never leaves me and usually causes a lot of friction. But, i am hopeful that some day some will be thankful too.

 

[von bek]

I guess I''ll have to let my Burmese and Sri Lankan teachers know that they are fake Western Buddhists.

 

[atanu]

I guess I''ll have to let my Burmese and Sri Lankan teachers know that they are fake Western Buddhists.

Yes. Many should get confirmation whether the following is a lie?

Zen for Americans: The God-Conception of Buddhism

One of the most fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that all the multitudinous and multifarious phenomena in the universe start from, and have their being in, one reality which itself has "no fixed abode," being above spatial and temporal limitations. ........

 

[atanu]

Anyway. This thread is about Hinduism.

 

[atanu]

What do you call this?:
You certainly mentioned it. Why would you deny it?

It was stated as a fact. I am a non knower of God and not Self Realised. In Hinduism, such a person cannot really understand the play of prajnana ..

My comment was made in this light.

Well first off, does that mean that you are conceding that Roy really did alter the form and content of Hinduism?

Roy was not Hindu proper. So, I will not discuss that.

Secondly, why do you assume that Vivekananda being influenced by English thought, constitutes a "wrong"? Hinduism is constantly engaging in syncretism. I don't consider it wrong, its just a new and different influence.

I do not understand. If it is in the very nature of Hinduism to be constantly engaged with Syncretism, then how can Vivekananda (or any one) be called a Neo Hindu.

I'll gladly answer your substantive question though: Vivekananda's alterations or innovations within Hinduism, or the innovations made by the Brahmos which were also adopted by Vivekananda include:

-He conceptualized Hinduism as an all-inclusive meta-religion. I.e. all religions could have equal truth value, and all descriptions of God were describing the same exact entity-- namely the atman/brahman.

That is the most fundamental and most celebrated teaching of the Veda.

- He was a quasi-missionary, which is very rare in the Hindu tradition,

Shankara established places of religion all over India. He travelled through all of India /.. spreading Advaita.

-His interpretation of Yoga is unique in that it takes away Pantajali's Samkhya metaphysics in which the gunas are the main substratum of prakriti. In Vivekananda's system it is akasha and prana which are the main substratum of prakriti. In Samkhya metaphysics, akasha is one of the final, not even close to the initial combination forms of gunas, and prana isn't considered a combination form of gunas at all.

Gunas are material.. made of Tattvas .. maha pancha bhutas. Vivekananda changed nothing.

-His version of the Ashram is very different from the traditional version, insofar as it accepts laymen, publishes literature, holds regular services and community events, etc. It behaves like a blend of an ashram, a temple, ...

Vedic dharma has always been for the whole of society ... varna-asrama dharma. Printing was available in his time.

- He treated samadhi as a valid knowledge means of knowledge for Brahmajnana rather than just sruti, as Shankara held. This is also a Brahmo teaching. (Some Vivekananda followers claim that Shankara thought that samadhi was a valid means of knowledge for brahmajnana, but shankara never says this. In his system, once someone has already attained valid knowledge from sruti, one engages in meditation upon what one knows and thereby attains spiritual release. This is an important distinction)

Knowledge of Atma can only be had in Samadhi. Gita teaches it. Shankara highlighted this in "Vivekachudamani", which has a separate section on Samadhi.

It is enshrined in Upanishads and Vedas in the saying "The Mind and Word return from it".

Samadhi -- the mindless -- advaita experience alone confers the true knowledge that Atman is One without a Second and is identical as Brahman.

It is not an invention of Vivekananda.

[quote- He reformulated the concept of Dharma away from varnashramadharma in favor of a more universalist approach. Also a Brahmo concept, which they started doing to counter Christian claims of being the universal, non-varna related Dharma. He also emphasized the "moral value" component of Dharma and deemphasized the "law" component. [/quote]

Law component of Hinduism has always kept with times as per mundane requirements, keeping the spiritual component intact.

Vivekananda, as an individual is just a speck on the infinite Brahman, wherefrom the sanatana dharma flows. Vivekanada did nothing new, since it is the Nature that acts.

 

[atanu]

.. This is a shame, because some forms of traditional Hinduism do have a sense of history, and most forms of traditional Hinduism have highly developed schools of logic and subject everything in sight to rational inquiry. I know I'm coming across as harsh right now, but I'm passionate about this because I think that it really hurts our tradition to refuse to engage with the facts brought up by scholars.

....

I welcome facts. Kindly give me fact as to which are the traditional Hindu schools that support rational enquiry and which have criticised Vivekananda or Ramana for ignoring rational enquiry.

Among the recent Hindu teachers, these two, in fact, have been most rational. Now, you can actually attack these two for being rational.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram von bek ji

When you look at the Sutta Pitaka, it is clear that the Buddha denies a First Cause. There are devas, but they grow old and die just like humans do. I didn't get this idea from reading modern books on Buddhism, it comes from the oldest texts.

I am most concerned that this point does not cause offence , but it is the age old problem of interpretations and god conceptions that causes some to reject and some to see through different eyes ,

“There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. What is dependent, that also moves; what is independent does not move. Where there is no movement, there is rest; where rest is, there is no desire; where there is no desire, there is neither coming nor going, no ceasing-to-be, no further coming to be. Where there is no ceasing-to-be, no further coming-to-be, there is neither this shore [this world] nor the other shore [Nirvana], nor anything between them." ..... Udana Nikaya

it is well known that many Buddhists see Shakyamuni Buddha as a manifestation of Adi Buddha and consider this unborn to be the primordial source of all , ...this is very different to the creator being god concept which some mistake it for . thus I think the inability in mankind to fully comprehend the true nature of this primordial Buddhi ,...was the reason why Shakyamuni Buddha refused to be drawn to answer this question and limited himself to teachng on that which would be of benifit to those traped in the ignorance and suffering of Samsara .

like wise I feel that we should not be drawn in to arguing on this topic it only causes hurt and offence , lord Buddha was an enlightened and skillfill teacher , had he felt it relevant to teach upon this subject he would have done so .

the fact that it rases it self later in other Buddhist traditions could be said to be due to other factors and the time being more appropriate , therefore I feel we are better not to judge but to sitck faithfully to our own traditions whilst symultaniously respecting others .

Happy Janmashtami ....to every one

 

[von bek]

Yes. Many should get confirmation whether the following is a lie?

In the future, may others be more respectful of your teachers and tradition than you are of mine.

If you are honestly interested in understanding Buddhism, here is a source that could help you. Don't worry, the author isn't white, he is Sri Lankan.

http://www.dhammaweb.net/books/Dr_Walpola_Rahula_What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf

With that, we are done. There is no need for us to ever interact again. May you be happy and free from suffering.

 

[LuisDantas]

This exactly exemplifies the most common problem.

A lack of understanding of Sanskrit or Pali has led to some translations that mislead people into thinking that Buddha taught Nihilism, that there was no First cause.

Are you implying that a lack of First cause leads to Nihilism? That would be odd.

That is not what actual Buddhists believe, however.

"Actual Buddhists" believe you should not speak on their behalf about what they believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow

this subject never leaves me and usually causes a lot of friction.

So very true.

But, i am hopeful that some day some will be thankful too.

I am hopeful that you will give up on that. You are a fairly wise person, and all the more so when you are not wasting your energies attempting to sell Theism to Buddhism.

 

[atanu]

I am no salesman. My response was limited only to just this.

Quote:

Zen for Americans: The God-Conception of Buddhism
One of the most fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that all the multitudinous and multifarious phenomena in the universe start from, and have their being in, one reality which itself has "no fixed abode," being above spatial and temporal limitations. ........
......................

Is this statement of 'one reality' wrong?