• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who is our True God? (Hinduism)

Shântoham

Vedantin
two things or two questions ?

Two things – as you can plainly read.

now now sir do not pretend to be so obtuse

Obtuseness is in the eye of the beholder.

I am sure you understand full well the difference between aquired knowledge and experiencial knowledge ?

If I did would I raise a point? Once again your patronizing attitude has been duly noted.

or is my english that bad ?

To give you a diplomatic answer – your English, your spelling, your attitude, and your reasoning are an acquired (!?!) taste.

Now one question – you speak of firsthand knowledge (experience) of God through direct realization – what is that?
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
Namaste

Before dispute goes further, I would just like to say that since coming to this forum, both of you, Ratikala-ji and Shantoham-ji, have distinguished yourselves in my eyes (for whatever that's worth) as good and learned dharmis with much of great value to share, each in your own way.

I think it would be unfortunate for this to continue in acrimony. Words were said, phrases were used, by both parties that conveyed a hostile, or superior - whether subtle or obvious - attitude.

Besides this temporary mutual disrespect, I feel there is also more permanent foundation of mutual respect. I have found in my own struggles with anger that anger has the tendency of blotting out from view all of the good qualities that we could, and do, without the presence of anger, appreciate in the other party. Anger looms large, obscuring our view of the broader context of the person who can, in the higher sense, not be described, being undefined by any momentary behaviors, attitudes, etc.

Please don't think I am trying to set myself up on a high horse here by neutrally observing. I am as guilty as anyone else here of feeling hostilities. I just feel it would be unfortunate for two such respected persons to engage in jalpa when fruitful conversation can be had instead.

Namaste
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear shantahoham ,


you come across as a learned and educated person , yet this is not the first time you have attacked me over my english and my grammer or cross questioned me over minute points which are not described to your high standard or in accordance with the veiws of your tradition .

Shântoham;3021166 said:
Two things – as you can plainly read.

I had the feeling that what ever I said in reply to your rather cryptic post would be wrong, it is difficult to know if you are asking a question or making a statement therefore difficult to know how to answer !
except to think that prehaps it is a trick question ?

Obtuseness is in the eye of the beholder.



If I did would I raise a point? Once again your patronizing attitude has been duly noted.
if my acusation of your obtuseness is in the eye of the beholder (being me) , then your acusation of my being patronising must allso be in the eye of the beholder ... being you !


To give you a diplomatic answer – your English, your spelling, your attitude, and your reasoning are an acquired (!?!) taste. you have allready cross questioned me about my in ability to write english , I know my spelling is terrible and I have appologised for this yet you make no allowances .

Now one question – you speak of firsthand knowledge (experience) of God through direct realization – what is that? [/quote]


if you hold me in such contempt , what use would there be in my answering your question ?

surely I would only offend your sencibilities again ?
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear shuddhasattva
Namaste

Before dispute goes further, I would just like to say that since coming to this forum, both of you, Ratikala-ji and Shantoham-ji, have distinguished yourselves in my eyes (for whatever that's worth) as good and learned dharmis with much of great value to share, each in your own way.

thank you prabhu ji for your kind words , I began replying to shantoham in ernest and with respect and have tried to egnore some rather strange remarks and cross questioning which I have tried to answer sincerely untill I realised the futility .
I think it would be unfortunate for this to continue in acrimony. Words were said, phrases were used, by both parties that conveyed a hostile, or superior - whether subtle or obvious - attitude.
there is no acrimony on my part dispite apparent criticism ,
Besides this temporary mutual disrespect, I feel there is also more permanent foundation of mutual respect. I have found in my own struggles with anger that anger has the tendency of blotting out from view all of the good qualities that we could, and do, without the presence of anger, appreciate in the other party. Anger looms large, obscuring our view of the broader context of the person who can, in the higher sense, not be described, being undefined by any momentary behaviors, attitudes, etc.
and no dissrespect , I have perceived shantahoham as an inteligent and learned manand have told him so , I simply wonder why he is taking me to task over my comments , particularly those which he has solicited ???

I am not an angry person and bear no malice , but I am anoyingly direct at times
and prehaps say more than I should , and if asked a question I feel bound by politeness to answer , yet if the answer is not to the questioners liking it will be regarded as rudeness !!!
I am not here to win an arguement simply to share thought and enquiry .
Please don't think I am trying to set myself up on a high horse here by neutrally observing. I am as guilty as anyone else here of feeling hostilities. I just feel it would be unfortunate for two such respected persons to engage in jalpa when fruitful conversation can be had instead.

Namaste
not at all , you have done the right thing and I thank you for that it gives me the oppertunity to explain that on my part ther are no hostilities . I am simply chalenging our brother shantoham to drop the pretence and stop sparing with me , as soon as he wishes to see the ammusing side of such pretence then I will happily converse constructively .... providing he can forgive my dyslexia and accept that as a minor irritation for which I appologise .
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
rakhi-b.jpg


2nd august, raksha bandan , ... love and prayers for the wellbeing of all my brothers shantoham included :namaste
 

Shântoham

Vedantin
Namaste

Before dispute goes further, I would just like to say that since coming to this forum, both of you, Ratikala-ji and Shantoham-ji, have distinguished yourselves in my eyes (for whatever that's worth) as good and learned dharmis with much of great value to share, each in your own way.

I think it would be unfortunate for this to continue in acrimony. Words were said, phrases were used, by both parties that conveyed a hostile, or superior - whether subtle or obvious - attitude.

Besides this temporary mutual disrespect, I feel there is also more permanent foundation of mutual respect. I have found in my own struggles with anger that anger has the tendency of blotting out from view all of the good qualities that we could, and do, without the presence of anger, appreciate in the other party. Anger looms large, obscuring our view of the broader context of the person who can, in the higher sense, not be described, being undefined by any momentary behaviors, attitudes, etc.

Please don't think I am trying to set myself up on a high horse here by neutrally observing. I am as guilty as anyone else here of feeling hostilities. I just feel it would be unfortunate for two such respected persons to engage in jalpa when fruitful conversation can be had instead.

Namaste

Pranām Shuddhasattvaji

There is wisdom in your words and as such I fully accept them in that spirit. It was never an issue of anger but a natural response to (what I perceive to be) nonsense.
As much as I cannot stand the zealotry and dogmatism of the resident iskconite I cannot stand the often inane, patronizing, and sanctimonious attitude of Ratikala.
Having said that, we are all unknown entities coalescing at one point in cyberspace, misreading is a potential hazard of which all of us can be guilty of.
 

Shântoham

Vedantin
dear shantahoham ,


you come across as a learned and educated person , yet this is not the first time you have attacked me over my english and my grammer or cross questioned me over minute points which are not described to your high standard or in accordance with the veiws of your tradition .

If you want to portray yourself as an innocent victim of my “rather strange remarks and questioning” go right ahead – a simple crosschecking of our exchanges will prove that this is not the case. It takes two to cope an attitude.
As obtusely patronizing or patronizingly obtuse it may sound if you stay out of my posts I will stay out of your posts. This is the best compromise I can offer.
 

Skeptisch

Well-Known Member
Esoteric :banghead3
This was posted with a healthy dose of sarcasm.
Esoteric - understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest.
That special knowledge could be completely fictitious and imaginary or even pretentious.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
...there is no acrimony on my part dispite apparent criticism...

I agree. There is no acrimony in your posts. :no:

Some people believe that they are gift of God to mankind. Their obtuseness forces them to believe so. Masking the shallowness of their spiritual understanding behind the flaunt of letters & words, they propagate all kinds of nonsense in the name of religion. Presenting their mental concoctions and speculations of holy transcendental scriptures, they mislead others for cheap popularity.

Whom the Supreme Lord beholds as dear in His eyes, is stated by Lord Himself. That is what really matters!

Supreme Lord says:

veda-nistha-madhye ardheka veda 'mukhe' mane
veda-nisiddha papa kare, dharma nahi gane​

"Among human beings, those who are followers of the Vedic principles are considered civilized. Among these, almost half simply give lip service while committing all kinds of sinful activities against these principles. Such people do not care for the regulative principles". [C.C. 19.146]

dharmacari-madhye bahuta 'karma-nistha'
koti-karma-nistha-madhye eka 'jnani' srestha​

"Among the followers of Vedic knowledge, most are following the process of fruitive activity and distinguishing between good and bad work. Out of many such sincere fruitive actors, there may be one who is actually wise."[C.C. 19.147]

koti-jnani-madhye haya eka-jana 'mukta'
koti-mukta-madhye 'durlabha' eka krsna-bhakta​

"Out of many millions of such wise men, one may actually become liberated [mukta], and out of many millions of such liberated persons, a pure devotee of Lord Krsna is very difficult to find".[C.C. 19.148]

Just look at how blessed you are! You are superior to the sinners, righteous Vedic ritualistic followers, fruitive workers, Jnanis & Yogis. You are a devotee of the Lord...one in many many millions! See how the Lord has blessed you! :)

For others, committing & supporting all kinds of sinful activities against religious principles, you should pray! :yes:
 
Last edited:

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
The word that can be written is not the eternal Word. The god that can be named is not the One True God. As the source of heaven-and-earth, it is Absolute. As the logos of all things, it is knowable. Forbid desires to observe its secrets; but facilitate desires to reveal its manifestations.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
This thread is rather fanatical posted by an OP who seems to have a blend of Hindu nationalistic, new-age, revivalist and Aryanism beliefs. The OP provides no evidence for why Hiryangarbha is the one and only true of Hindus, and what he does provide are scattered references in Vedic, post Vedic and Puranic literature. However, we find just as many references in the same sources that call Indra, Surya, Agni, Soma, Varuna, Mitra, Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma and any number of the deities the one supreme god. The OP just conveniently seems to ignore this and decided to elevate a rather minor god like Hiryanharbh to supreme god status. It is similar to how Vaishnavists conveniently ignore the numerous hymns in the Vedas to Indra, Agni, Varuna, Soma calling them all supreme etc, and prefer to just focus on less than a dozen hymns out of thousands to a minor Vedic god like Vishnu.

What the OP lacks, is what I have told him elsewhere before, is historical context. The Vedas are not a coherent and unified text authored by a single author or a single group of humans, it is composed by countless authors over thousands of years, most likely going back to the early Mehgarh phase of the Indus Valley civilisation. It documents the evolution of religious thought among the early Indian people. Like all primitive cultures the original Indian people worshiped many gods, each clan worshiping their own favorite god, so some worshiped Indra, some worshiped Agni, some Surya, some a combination. Again like all primitive cultures, they pleased their gods though sacrifices by offering food, animals, even occasional humans(a practice common among other early cultures like the Druids, Jews and Native Americans) As Indian society developed going from agrian Mehgarh phase to the urban phase of Harrapa, we see the refinement of religious thought and the reduction of the number of gods from dozens to just one, reflecting the development of organized society. Hence in the later hymns of the Vedas we find monotheistic, pantheistic and monistic thought appearing, albeit in a very rudimentary and unconsolidated form. Just as we find in the history of Judaism the transision from Elohim(gods plural) to one god. It is not until Vedanta that the concept of just one singular reality is consolidated, giving birth to something even beyond montheism, but monism: Brahman and Atman as both interchangeable concepts. In the same axial period, we find that other cultures in the world are also forming similar concepts such as the Zoroastrians, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese. This is either because of historical cultural exchange between our ancient people or some kind of collective unconsciousness explanation, the simplest explanation is cultural exchange.

Vedanta is not the only articulation of Gnostic philosophy found in the ancient world, but is clearly is the most well developed articulation of it. The reason for this is not because of Indians being special, but because they had a climate of free philosophical thought which allowed the darsanas to come into existence, whereas their most closest counterpart the Greeks were not as free and would face persecution for going too against the grain, such as Socrates. However, in later modern Western philosophical thought we find very well developed ideas similar to Vedanta emerge because of a climate of free philosophical thought appears in the West in the age of enlightenment. Western philosophy thought has only just reached the mature phase of Vedanta philosophy in the 21s century, this is why the Indian philosophical tradition despite being thousands of years older reads like debates in contemporary philosophy and is very relevant even today in modern philosophy.
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear prabhu ,



What the OP lacks, is what I have told him elsewhere before,


from this comment it would appear that some people are hopping around sites picking up on old fights !!!

what is the point prabhu ? .....:shrug: what is the point ?

life is too short :D
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
dear prabhu ,






from this comment it would appear that some people are hopping around sites picking up on old fights !!!

what is the point prabhu ? .....:shrug: what is the point ?

life is too short :D

What is the point of any debate? If you don't like debates or think they are a waste of your precious time, don't come to a debate forum.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
What you consider bashing other with opinions and debating is very subjective. I have not bashed the OP, but made a case to show how the OP's position is not supported by the texts they cite, showing clear examples and showing how the OP ignores the historical context, also clearly explaining it. I do not leave any of my points underdeveloped, but flesh them out, providing many examples as any good debater should.

Again if you don't like debates, then what are you doing here? Do you have anything to actually say on the thread topic, or you are here to to arbiter whether I am debating or just bashing?
 
Last edited:

Pleroma

philalethist
You really need to ask yourself as to why you have been mistreated by Hindus. Some deserve such treatment for they insult the gods of the Hindus comparing it with monsters and unicorns. Keep this kind of arguments in the west where you criticize creationists not for well educated and well informed Hindus.

What you're revealing here is your personal incredulity because if you had understood the meaning of the statement "ekam sad vipra bahuda" you wouldn't have made a straw-man of my position and criticize me for saying Hiranyagarbha is our true God. When I say Hiranyagarbha is our true God it means that he is the master of the agni soma mandala and he stands in the centre of the assembly of Gods, the wholly sun and all gods reside in this mandala itself. It no where means that other gods are false or they doesn't exist. Any ways its a waste of time explaining this to you because you're delusional and spiritually immatured and you won't understand these things.

For us the wisdom in these traditions is important than anything else and don't bring or convert people to Hinduism thinking that we will tolerate all thier dirty things and won't criticize it. We have already kicked a false guru out of our state who was sexually exploiting women in the name of spiritual enlightenment. Yes we welcome everyone in our country but we will not tolerate if anyone comes here for wrong reasons than for good.

You say you have passion for Advaita. What you're passion is doing is that it is killing the very soul and essence of the Vedas and the Upanishads. You think you can fool other people quite easily but what you're doing is fooling yourself. If you study from a historical or a linguistic perspective you won't understand anything, a intuitive access into the numinous is albeit necessary.

Hindus are not dumb and all scientific evidence is in favour of theism and we know the advancements in science and we also know the deepest secrets of Hinduism and knowledge is power, this is the end of faith of orthodox religions and the end of scientific realism. Its not the death of gods, its actually the return of gods and I very well know on which side I am. Science and orthodox religions can squabble with each other in any way you want, we pagans and esotericists will try to make this world a better place and avoid dogmatic thinking as much as possible and all evidence is in favour of pagan religions.

Those who call others as fanatic are the ones who are really fanatical for they doesn't tolerate a difference of opinion.
 
Last edited:

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
For US the wisdom in these traditions is important than anything else and don't bring or convert people to Hinduism thinking that WE will tolerate all thier dirty things and won't criticize it. For US the wisdom in these traditions is important than anything else and don't bring or convert people to Hinduism thinking that WE will tolerate all thier dirty things and won't criticize it. WE have already kicked a false guru out of our state who was sexually exploiting women in the name of spiritual enlightenment. Yes WE welcome everyone in our country but WE will not tolerate if anyone comes here for wrong reasons than for good.

WE also know the deepest secrets of Hinduism and knowledge is power

You have obviously self-appointed yourself to be the official custodian and spokesperson of all Hindus in the world. But somebody has to tell all Hindus in the world, because as a Hindu myself, I've never heard of you lol
 
Last edited:
Top