Love

Hello stonehearted, It so happens that I have a copy of Koran (translated into Hindi by Muslim scholars themselves as part of the UP Government funds that are set up for this purpose exactly). The copy is in India at the moment. Whenever I am next in india I could try to quote something really surprising from theier. One of them as it was written in Hindi was: Make friends wiht non-believers if you have to, but remember to stab them in the back when the opportuninty comes. A non-believer is doomed for hell (dozakh) where he will be eternally punished for not believing ALlah and his only messenger Mohammad. (Now which Hindu rishi says that I ma the only one sent by God). We believe that it is possible for all beings to go closer to God provided they endeavour for it. A man can give up his woman simply or even kill her if even as much as he suspects her of being unworthy. I am sure you will not find things like these in the Hindu scriptures as they are really philosophies while neither Bible nor Koran are philosophical works but laws that tell you what to do. The closest in Hinduism to these would be Manu's book. It is strange that no one sees through the thing when it is all clear in the Koran as to what it is all about. It is the book of adharma. Tell me one thing - have you ever read Koran yourself. If not, I sincerely suggest that you do go out and read it.

Hi stonehearted, Can you please tell me which part of history do you refer to when speaking of liberal-minded Muslims in the past? I thought Islam by its very existence is intolerant of anyone else other than Mohammad and considers a duty to kill the infidel. Islam needs to re-invent itself by the process of re-interpretation (that will be something, as Koran simply says to kill all the non-believers and I don't know how they will manage to re-interpret it) ot survive in 21st century or humanity will be forced to move against it. Alterbatively, nature may have other plans and may use Islam to end Kaliyuga. Possibilities are infinite!

The reson I say a true Hindu will not say fantical sentences is that fanticism is the tamasic form whcih is not supported by human dharma. However, standing up for dharma is right and so, indeed, we must fight for dharma. But that doesn;t have tonecessarily mean relegating others downward and so on. Anger can be a rage that is uncontroleed but if we learn to control our anger it becomes a weapon in our hand to be used effectveily and righteously. Our anger should not be something that can be provoked by others but raised by our own accord when required. IN a fight anger when not in rage can help us fight within our senses and can inspire us. However, in the ofrm os uncontrolled rage it can only make a Don Quixotic hero out of us. For the second point that dharma is not detailed in a book. Sure that is correct. None of our holy books tell us what dharma is - because Mandodari's dharma was to be with Ravana. Lakshman found his dharma in being with Rama in exile while Shatrughana's dharma was to stay back and rule the kingdom as a representative of Rama. So, you see for 3 people the defintion of dharma changed. Dharma is only the stepping stone towards Nirvana. Dharma is nothing more that a way of life. When someone wants to be a sage/ spiritualist, then he/ she is in need of religion. Unfortunately, on the spiritual path every one is eventually alone and one's gurur cannot get Nirvana for his disciple, else all guru's owuld have probably got it for their disciples. It is a lonesome path. When someone on that path details a philosophy it is osmething of his/ her experience on his own path. It may guide you initially but the final door has to be chosen and unlocked by each individual. At that time no religion will help. If you look at other Holy Books like Bible/ Koran, they are not teaching any philosophy (people may disagree) but trying to teach a way of life. Whereas Indian Upanishads (especially), Puranas send a philosophical message. One day I will try and relate story from Prashnopinishad to suppport my point (very soon). Cheers

The reson I say a true Hindu will not say fantical sentences is that fanticism is the tamasic form whcih is not supported by human dharma. However, standing up for dharma is right and so, indeed, we must fight for dharma. But that doesn;t have tonecessarily mean relegating others downward and so on. Anger can be a rage that is uncontroleed but if we learn to control our anger it becomes a weapon in our hand to be used effectveily and righteously. Our anger should not be something that can be provoked by others but raised by our own accord when required. IN a fight anger when not in rage can help us fight within our senses and can inspire us. However, in the ofrm os uncontrolled rage it can only make a Don Quixotic hero out of us. For the second point that dharma is not detailed in a book. Sure that is correct. None of our holy books tell us what dharma is - because Mandodari's dharma was to be with Ravana. Lakshman found his dharma in being with Rama in exile while Shatrughana's dharma was to stay back and rule the kingdom as a representative of Rama. So, you see for 3 people the defintion of dharma changed. Dharma is only the stepping stone towards Nirvana. Dharma is nothing more that a way of life. When someone wants to be a sage/ spiritualist, then he/ she is in need of religion. Unfortunately, on the spiritual path every one is eventually alone and one's gurur cannot get Nirvana for his disciple, else all guru's owuld have probably got it for their disciples. It is a lonesome path. When someone on that path details a philosophy it is osmething of his/ her experience on his own path. It may guide you initially but the final door has to be chosen and unlocked by each individual. At that time no religion will help. If you look at other Holy Books like Bible/ Koran, they are not teaching any philosophy (people may disagree) but trying to teach a way of life. Whereas Indian Upanishads (especially), Puranas send a philosophical message. One day I will try and relate story from Prashnopinishad to suppport my point (very soon). Cheers

The publisher is Citadel Press. ISBN No: 0-8065-1098-6 OR 0-8065-1101-x

The publisher is Citadel Press. ISBN No: 0-8065-1098-6 OR 0-8065-1101-x

God is one where contradictions get resolved. He is beyond even good and evil. So it is frutiless to say that God is good or evil. He is simply beyond it. If we try and explain Him in language we will fail as He cannot be explained in our words but can only be felt or realised. IN order to bring Him closer to layman the need to give physical shape to God arose. We have both good and evil in us. There is nothing like being able to reach God throough the dark side as well as the light side. It is us humans that casue these classifications. I think the basis for old Hindu proverb (satya kee hamesha jeet hoti hai - "Truth prevails") is the Hindu philosophy: We get everything initially in tamasik form call it evil if you like (but I think it is a harsh word). When we take rebirht from our elements in tamasik form they turn into sattvik/ rajasik guna of the same element. For instance, I could have love in me (love ofr myself) and when I learn to take re-birth from this self-love my love flowers into love for all. Thereby, negative forms combine together to create positive forms in us - constituent elements of self-love combine to transform into selfless-love and thus, negativ cannot defeat positive in us ever. The only precondition is that we know the way to take rebirth. That is how we are dwija and a brahmin.

If you go to any bookshop in USA, they will be able to search it for you by the author's name or the book title. I live in UK and it is actually not in publication in UK anymore. However, I went to the bookshop and sure they had the title in their database even though it was not printed in UK. I placed an order and in about 6 weeks I got the book. The book shop managed to get it from US to UK. I am not very sure of the publisher at the moment but I think it is Citadel Press. I will check that today evening when I reach home and update the thread on it. Cheers

If you go to any bookshop in USA, they will be able to search it for you by the author's name or the book title. I live in UK and it is actually not in publication in UK anymore. However, I went to the bookshop and sure they had the title in their database even though it was not printed in UK. I placed an order and in about 6 weeks I got the book. The book shop managed to get it from US to UK. I am not very sure of the publisher at the moment but I think it is Citadel Press. I will check that today evening when I reach home and update the thread on it. Cheers

Anyone who is truly a Hindu will not say fanatical or zealous sentences. The reason is Hinduism believes in co-existence. In fact, it was so mature that it let others preach their religion, as Hindus knew that others were teaching religion when Hinduism preached Dharma. I don’t know how many know the difference between religion and dharma. Religion is what is detailed in a book while dharma is something that none of the ancient rishis ever attempted to classify in any Holy Book as the ultimate as they knew well that each had their own dharma and it was the duty of that individual to uphold the dharma in himself. Of course, finding the path of dharma was not easy. But the basic guide was that dharma stands on the tri-faced pillar of truth, good and beauty (Satya, Shiv, and Sundar). Anyway, when Hindus allowed Muslims and Christians, Zoroastrians and Persians into the country to preach their own religiion when they came, why would Hindus have problem with Bodh Dharma or Jain Dharma (mind you not religions but dharma)? They were produced from Hinduism only after all. Hindus understood that eventually religion was for someone desiring the spiritual path. However, not all the people at once in this world would desire the spiritual path (if it were to be so world would not surive for long) and so for them the way to live was to uphold dharma. In ancient times there are numerous instances of a couple, where the husband followed Buddha and the wife believed in Mahavira. So, the religious democracy is something that we cannot say was not a part of the Hindu life. Besides, most of the ancient temples – be they Hindu, Jain or Buddhist as far as I am aware, were actually rampaged by the Islamic intruders and converted into mosques or destroyed totally because of the statues and idols (just as in Taliban). No wonder, then, that someone like Bahauddin, would more than love to distort the truth and say it was the Hindus who did it and not the followers of Islam. Very conveniently he also says that Jains and Buddhists found no conflict with Islam as it was also a religion that treated every human being with equality. That is utter non-sense. I recommend all Hindus to go through the Koran at least once. It is about 400 pages long written in big font size, one side of the page is Arabic, the other side is translated into Hindi with half of the translated page as foot note. This means effectively there are only 150 pages or so of Hindi or translation in your language of choice that you need to read to read Koran. It very clearly says that one who is not Muslim is relegated to the depths of hell. The duty of a true Muslim is to stab a non-Muslim in the back while making him a friend for their selfish reasons. Hinduism never says that you have to believe in Shiva, or Vishnu, or Brahma to go to heaven. It is your karma that decide it. If you want to grow beyong the cycle of brith and death you follow a religious path to thata aim util you attain Nirvana. Nirvana was not something that was available to Brahmins only. Further, a Brahmin was also known as dwija (i.e. twice-born). THis simply means that a person (once born from his mnotehr's womb somatically) and then born again when he takes rebirth from various archetypes and 16 elements of hid body and passions, etc he is called dwija (twice born) and is then a brahmin. Where does Hinduism say that a Shudra cannot attain Nirvana. I thought there was even the story of this simple boy who picked water in his nouth to sprinkle on Shiv linga nad Shiva got pleased with him and appeared before him. Then, how can Bahauddin say that Hinduism does not treate all persons with equality. If HInduism does not then there is no other belief in the world that does. It is time all the waste of energy within Hindus is stopped and we see the game that the Islamic and Western forces have played with Hindu dharma. It is very unwise to call Jainism or Buddhism outside Hinduism. They were interpretations in their own manner and showed a new path to reach God. It was the greatness of Bharat Varsha that mani-fold interpretation of God existed here without problem. By that manner each Hindu is actually following a different religion as I am sure you all have heard of personal deities, which are so widely prevalent in Hindus. Each family usually has their personal deities. This does not mean that all Hindus have different beliefs? Hindus are together by their culture and sense of dharma, while the independence is given to the human spirit within each to visualize the Supreme Being in his/ her own manner. Have none of you ever wondered why is it that at Krishna JanmaBhoomi in Mathura, the cell in which Krishna was supposed to be born is underneath a mosque? Why the place that Hindus call Rama JanmaBhoomi has actually a mosque in its place? If you as Hindus do not see this and keep on the foolish ego about Hindu being better than Jainism or Buddhism, then we have nowhere to go. We are already doomed as a race. We are destined to re-write Hinduism in our foolish ways and forget the foundation on which it was built by sages thousands of years ago. BY the way I am a through and through Jain from Saharanpur (UP) in India, who happens to live in UK. So, if someone thinks this is another Hindu trying to be belligerent (in your perspective) then please be aware that as per your definition I am a Jain. That is another thing that I believe all the different sects, cults, dharma, in India that indigenously started in India (exclude Christianity and Islam, Parsi, Zoroastrians) are all branches of Hinduism. Anyone who knows better knows the knowledge of self-destruction. When Indian history has been so much corrupted how can we take any historian’s simplest sentence without a pinch of salt. Moreover they use this only to try and prove themselves to be authentic just as Jayaprakash is doing in his article above by saying that any sincere student of history would not accept that. But this does not imply that Jayaprakash himself is being genuine about history himself, but cleverly gives an impression as if he is. I could go on and on and write about this. I could branch off into so many directions as there is so much to write, but I am sure we all get where I am coming from. Last of all, if any of you are very interested in knowing the simplest bit about Buddhism try reading Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism – By Ananda K. Coomraswamy Especially read the chapter Buddhism and Brahmanism. There has not been a greater seeker of truth in modern times. I am sure you’ll love his writing, unless of course you also have a personal agenda to which you work. If you are a selfless seeker of truth then I would fail to see how you will not be able to see the sincerity in his writing that can break away the shackles created by the modern writers about Hinduism and India. Just one thing to finish it all. I know of a few Muslim friends who have at least on person in their living family always who follows Hindu ways. When I asked them this they said that they know that many centuries in the past their forefathers were Hindus and so they try and retain their link to their past in this manner. This was sometimes as simple as just having one person in the household wear a dhoti. Interesting! Isn’t it?

Anyone who is truly a Hindu will not say fanatical or zealous sentences. The reason is Hinduism believes in co-existence. In fact, it was so mature that it let others preach their religion, as Hindus knew that others were teaching religion when Hinduism preached Dharma. I don’t know how many know the difference between religion and dharma. Religion is what is detailed in a book while dharma is something that none of the ancient rishis ever attempted to classify in any Holy Book as the ultimate as they knew well that each had their own dharma and it was the duty of that individual to uphold the dharma in himself. Of course, finding the path of dharma was not easy. But the basic guide was that dharma stands on the tri-faced pillar of truth, good and beauty (Satya, Shiv, and Sundar). Anyway, when Hindus allowed Muslims and Christians, Zoroastrians and Persians into the country to preach their own religiion when they came, why would Hindus have problem with Bodh Dharma or Jain Dharma (mind you not religions but dharma)? They were produced from Hinduism only after all. Hindus understood that eventually religion was for someone desiring the spiritual path. However, not all the people at once in this world would desire the spiritual path (if it were to be so world would not surive for long) and so for them the way to live was to uphold dharma. In ancient times there are numerous instances of a couple, where the husband followed Buddha and the wife believed in Mahavira. So, the religious democracy is something that we cannot say was not a part of the Hindu life. Besides, most of the ancient temples – be they Hindu, Jain or Buddhist as far as I am aware, were actually rampaged by the Islamic intruders and converted into mosques or destroyed totally because of the statues and idols (just as in Taliban). No wonder, then, that someone like Bahauddin, would more than love to distort the truth and say it was the Hindus who did it and not the followers of Islam. Very conveniently he also says that Jains and Buddhists found no conflict with Islam as it was also a religion that treated every human being with equality. That is utter non-sense. I recommend all Hindus to go through the Koran at least once. It is about 400 pages long written in big font size, one side of the page is Arabic, the other side is translated into Hindi with half of the translated page as foot note. This means effectively there are only 150 pages or so of Hindi or translation in your language of choice that you need to read to read Koran. It very clearly says that one who is not Muslim is relegated to the depths of hell. The duty of a true Muslim is to stab a non-Muslim in the back while making him a friend for their selfish reasons. Hinduism never says that you have to believe in Shiva, or Vishnu, or Brahma to go to heaven. It is your karma that decide it. If you want to grow beyong the cycle of brith and death you follow a religious path to thata aim util you attain Nirvana. Nirvana was not something that was available to Brahmins only. Further, a Brahmin was also known as dwija (i.e. twice-born). THis simply means that a person (once born from his mnotehr's womb somatically) and then born again when he takes rebirth from various archetypes and 16 elements of hid body and passions, etc he is called dwija (twice born) and is then a brahmin. Where does Hinduism say that a Shudra cannot attain Nirvana. I thought there was even the story of this simple boy who picked water in his nouth to sprinkle on Shiv linga nad Shiva got pleased with him and appeared before him. Then, how can Bahauddin say that Hinduism does not treate all persons with equality. If HInduism does not then there is no other belief in the world that does. It is time all the waste of energy within Hindus is stopped and we see the game that the Islamic and Western forces have played with Hindu dharma. It is very unwise to call Jainism or Buddhism outside Hinduism. They were interpretations in their own manner and showed a new path to reach God. It was the greatness of Bharat Varsha that mani-fold interpretation of God existed here without problem. By that manner each Hindu is actually following a different religion as I am sure you all have heard of personal deities, which are so widely prevalent in Hindus. Each family usually has their personal deities. This does not mean that all Hindus have different beliefs? Hindus are together by their culture and sense of dharma, while the independence is given to the human spirit within each to visualize the Supreme Being in his/ her own manner. Have none of you ever wondered why is it that at Krishna JanmaBhoomi in Mathura, the cell in which Krishna was supposed to be born is underneath a mosque? Why the place that Hindus call Rama JanmaBhoomi has actually a mosque in its place? If you as Hindus do not see this and keep on the foolish ego about Hindu being better than Jainism or Buddhism, then we have nowhere to go. We are already doomed as a race. We are destined to re-write Hinduism in our foolish ways and forget the foundation on which it was built by sages thousands of years ago. BY the way I am a through and through Jain from Saharanpur (UP) in India, who happens to live in UK. So, if someone thinks this is another Hindu trying to be belligerent (in your perspective) then please be aware that as per your definition I am a Jain. That is another thing that I believe all the different sects, cults, dharma, in India that indigenously started in India (exclude Christianity and Islam, Parsi, Zoroastrians) are all branches of Hinduism. Anyone who knows better knows the knowledge of self-destruction. When Indian history has been so much corrupted how can we take any historian’s simplest sentence without a pinch of salt. Moreover they use this only to try and prove themselves to be authentic just as Jayaprakash is doing in his article above by saying that any sincere student of history would not accept that. But this does not imply that Jayaprakash himself is being genuine about history himself, but cleverly gives an impression as if he is. I could go on and on and write about this. I could branch off into so many directions as there is so much to write, but I am sure we all get where I am coming from. Last of all, if any of you are very interested in knowing the simplest bit about Buddhism try reading Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism – By Ananda K. Coomraswamy Especially read the chapter Buddhism and Brahmanism. There has not been a greater seeker of truth in modern times. I am sure you’ll love his writing, unless of course you also have a personal agenda to which you work. If you are a selfless seeker of truth then I would fail to see how you will not be able to see the sincerity in his writing that can break away the shackles created by the modern writers about Hinduism and India. Just one thing to finish it all. I know of a few Muslim friends who have at least on person in their living family always who follows Hindu ways. When I asked them this they said that they know that many centuries in the past their forefathers were Hindus and so they try and retain their link to their past in this manner. This was sometimes as simple as just having one person in the household wear a dhoti. Interesting! Isn’t it?

I think it is an annual occasion known as MahaAbhishek. Probably there is a daily abhishek also. I am not aware of how this is set out. Sorry.

That statue is in Sravan Belagol in South India (I think further from Bangalore). It is the statue of Bahubali, the younger of the two princes who fought for the throne to a kingdom when their father passed away. As it happened, Bahubaliji was much stronger than the his elder brother and they had a tought fight. They had decided to fight various forms of warfare to decide who will get the throne. Eventually, the decider came on MallYudh ( hand-to-hand combat) and Bahubaliji being much stronger than his elder brother was managing to find the winning ways easiyl. At one point of time he picked up his brother and was about to throw him on the ground when he realised the uselessness of all the fight for worldly things and so, he sat his brother on his shoulders instead. He thought he was doing adharma by riducling his elder brother. So, the elder brother was declared the king. But Bahubaliji felt such remorse that he wished to die. He felt he was a load on this motehr earth. So, he lifted himself up on one single toe and stood their for 12 years. But freedom would not come to him. THen at one brilliant moment he realised that it was his ahamkar (ego) that was making him do all this and as soon as he realised this and got a re-birth from his ego, he attained enlightenment. It is his statue as it is form the story where in those 12 years actually some creeper plants had used his body to climb up and that is what is portrayed in the statue. The bathing in the milk ceremony, I think is called MahaAbhishek.

Yogic exercises are meant for the somatic-self. It helps to control the somatic existence of the man - when I say control it means helps concentrate the energies in it in the right manner. Of course, it is a means in a fashion because one cannot build a palace over bad foundations and proper somatic growth is necessary to have true spiritual freedom. I just find it very hard to believe that there is a single soul on Earth that has nothin but love in his heart for the people irrespective of their stance in life, their inclination or their approach towards others. I have not seen a single person who has been able to gain control over his anger - meaning even uses anger when it is required (Remember Krishna also got angry when it was required. We get angry for our own subtle motives and not for upholding dharma). And so if there is not a single soul who has been able to use yogic methods to come out of this how can this be really helpful at further stages of spiritual enlightenment?

I am not sure if it answers the questions I raised in the previous mail. unless, of course, it wa implicit in our mails that at least you have grown to a very high level of spiritual plane from where you can feel that love for me. The way it is described feels more of a theoretical answer rather than a personal experince jotted down. I apologize for writing all this but I only want us all to find the truth amidst the cobwebs of confusion layered in our personalities. Also, when you say yoga - do you mean the yogic exercises as done in yoga - astanga yoga, hatha yoga, etc or are you talking of yoga from the prespective of a karmayogi. Mahavira, Rama or anyonel else for that matter did not practise yoga to attain Nirvana. It was an entirely different kind of yoga - the spiritual kind. The yogic exercises can only help us clear up our physical existence upto certain level. But I simply disagree to believe that it grows someone spiritually. Someone has been misguiding a lot of people, I feel.