Neo-Hinduism - What Is It?

[sant]

 

Agamas and Tantras fall in the same category. Agamas are Tantras. Both these are supposed to be from the Karma Kanda portion of the Vedas.

 

 

 

supposed to be ,what do you think you are doing now trying to give tantras shruti status.

If such nonsense unorhtodox and completely against vedas philossophy is vedik then theres nothing to say more that you are trying to forcefully put it there.

tell me one rishi who practised tantra.Remeber bhimas wife she did this practise so you suppose what this is.

[sambya]

 

I suppose you dont rmemeber why buddha was born,one reason was because people in kali yog were unfit to perform yajanas and to protect innocent creatures to go in the fire.

 

that comes from jayadeva's dashavatara stotra . with its high popularity this concept rapidly gained foothold !!

 

 

 

Texts like tantra etc are the one which are non vedic and people are trying to give call them vedik.

 

tantras themselves never claim themselves as vedic . they say vedas were true and good but no longer suitable for this age . thats why tantra was spoken by shiva . almost the same argument put forward by gaudiya vaishnavas while popularising their harinaam .

[sant]

 

tantras themselves never claim themselves as vedic . they say vedas were true and good but no longer suitable for this age . thats why tantra was spoken by shiva . almost the same argument put forward by gaudiya vaishnavas while popularising their harinaam .

 

Ofcourse they arent .

Sex to moksh idea is not practised in the vedas.Full Rakshasi

[sambya]

 

Ofcourse they arent .

Sex to moksh idea is not practised in the vedas.Full Rakshasi

 

not alll tantra speak of sex . you are speaking of vamamarga of tantra , not the dakshinaachar . vamamarga is corruption of tantra . just like sahajiya vaishnvas are corrupted version of true vaishnavas . now if i say vaishnvas are busy with sex .... will it be just ?

[bhaktajan]

After compiling the Vedas, Vyasadeva set forth their essence in the aphorisms known as Vedanta-sutras.

Five thousand years ago Vyasadeva put the Vedas in writing for the people in this age, Kali-yuga.

He divided the Vedas into four: Rig, Sama, Atharva and Yajur.

Then he gave the charge of these Vedas to his different disciples.

Then Vyasadeva summarized all Vedic knowledge for scholars and philosophers in what is called the Vedanta-sutra. This is the last word of the Vedas.

Vyasadeva was not very satisfied even after compiling many Puranas and Upanisads, and even after writing the Vedanta-sutra.

Then his spiritual master, Narada, instructed him, “Explain the Vedanta-sutra.” Vedanta means “ultimate knowledge,” and the ultimate knowledge is Krsna.

 

The Vedanta-sutra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth:

“The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates.”

This is a summary, but it is explained in detail in Srimad-Bhagavatam. If everything is emanating from the Absolute Truth, then what is the nature of the Absolute Truth? That is explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam.

The Absolute Truth must be consciousness. He is self-effulgent (svarat).

We develop our consciousness and knowledge by receiving knowledge from others, but for Him it is said that He is self-effulgent.

The whole summary of Vedic knowledge is the Vedanta-sutra, and the Vedanta-sutra is explained by the writer himself in Srimad-Bhagavatam.

[sant]

 

not alll tantra speak of sex . you are speaking of vamamarga of tantra , not the dakshinaachar . vamamarga is corruption of tantra . just like sahajiya vaishnvas are corrupted version of true vaishnavas . now if i say vaishnvas are busy with sex .... will it be just ?

 

<!-- / message -->

the only qualitie of vaishnav is to serve the lord.

You talk about das mahavidya as dakshinaachar

[bhaktajan]

Kali_Upasaka wrote:

"The Vedas praise all Gods/Goddesses . . . "

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Family Tree of all the personalities of the Veda:

 

There is an actual family tree described in approximately 563 Slokas As found in the Bhagavata-purana.

These Slokas delineate the family lineages starting with Brahma

[including all the Prajapatis, Manus, the Soma & the Surya Dynasties] up until the 11th Century C.E.. Approximately 2,500 names [including wives are listed]

Avataras and their family lineage is included too—which brings us to the Puranas and before that to the various Vedic Books that re-tell ancient events among the Devas in their youth.

In the Bhagavata-purana the family tree Starts with & proceeds as follows:

1) Brahma's Birth [155 Trillion B.C.] — Brahma's children — Brahma's Daughter-in-law & Son-in-laws — Brahma's grandchildren — Brahma's great-grandchildren

2) Brahma's first 50 years of his life have already passed —

3) Brahma's awakes afresh at the start of the Present Day (kalpa) — the first Manu (svayambhuva) is born — Kasyapa & his cousins re-populate the Universe (prajapatis)

4) The first to 6<SUP>th</SUP> Manus born, live and pass.

5) The 7<SUP>th</SUP> Manu is born.

3) At the end of the 1<SUP>st</SUP> Maha-yuga of the 7<SUP>th</SUP> Manu— Mother Revati leaves to seek Husband (and 27 Maha-yuga later arrives to marry Balarama).

4) We are here now in the 28th Maha-yuga epoch [out of 71] of the present 7<SUP>th</SUP> Manu.

5) The family tree continues until the 11<SUP>th</SUP> Century CE.

The reason for various seemingly contradictory statements in the Vedas,

and also,

in seemingly contradictory statements in the Puranas about pastimes of persons mentioned in different puranas etc is:

The events happened in vastly different epochs and vastly different places —attended by a few most famous personalities and also attended by mutitudes of Sadhus, rishis and celestial near-do-wells —therefore the re-counting of Vedic events of antiquity contain points-of-view from sources that witnessed the same events from different vantage points.

Also, the Demigods are prone to mistakes, bad-manners, momentary lapses of judgment, lust pursuits etc —so eventhough their behavior is exemplary it contains all the variety of Celestial Soap-Operas [novellas] that spring from the Human-condition [Demigod-condition].

Remember, Daksha, Durvasa and what to speak of Big-Big Asuras who made mistakes when they could have enjoyed the good life into their dotage years.

 

Why would Indra not recognize the advent of Vishnu's original-form incarnate ['Bala-Krishna-Kana']?

 

Because of supreme conceit. But the Devas are not self-hating soul killers —they live a polished life of opulence with their duties to perform for the good of all sentient beings and also for the maintenance of the physical structure of the cosmos.

Getting oriented,

Bhaktajan

 

[Kali_Upasaka]

Puranas are Not Vedas. Puranas are sectarian. Vedas are not. The Pouranic/Itihasic religion came thousands of years after the Vedic religion. It is the Pouranic/Itihasic religion which became the popular Hinduism later.

 

When I talk about Vedas it is from the Vedas. Not from Puranas.

 

A British Indologist went to the extent of suggesting that the Puranic/Itihasic religion of the Ganges region massacred the Vedic religion of the Sindhu/Saraswati region.

 

Everyone swears by Vedas. But have you ever wondered why we have no Punya Kshtera along the Sindhu river.

 

Most of the Hindus of today have little or no knowledge of the Vedas. If you want to know the Vedas read the Vedas, not the Puranas or the Puranic stories about Vedas.

[kaisersose]

 

Five thousand years ago Vyasadeva put the Vedas in writing for the people in this age, Kali-yuga.

 

The 5000 year old date is unsubstantiated. You may just want to say - "at the start of Kali yuga" - whenever that was.

 

Vyasadeva was not very satisfied even after compiling many Puranas and Upanisads, and even after writing the Vedanta-sutra.

 

1) Why did he use the pen name Badarayana in the Sutras and nowhere else?

 

2) Evidently he was not satisified after writing the Bhagavatam too, as much later, he appeared before Shankara and told him to explain the principle of of the Vedas clearly, which was Advaita. Then again, he appeared before Madhva and told him to write a Dvaita commentary on the Sutras. We canmot rule out the possiblity of him reappearing again to someone else and instructing him to start a brand new interpretation.

 

In short, Vyaya appears to be a fickle, "hard to please" character who is in need of therapy. We can accept that or else, we can accept the below.

 

a) The Sutras were written by a different individual than the Bhagavatam.

b) The story of the Sutra-author "not being pleased" as found in the Bhagavatam is just a fabrication.

c) The story of Shankara meeting Vyasa was a fabrication of the biographer

d) The story of madhva meeting Vyasa is a similar fabrication.

 

The choice is ours.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

Kali_Upasaka wrote:

-Puranas are sectarian. Vedas are not.

-Everyone swears by Vedas.

-Most of the Hindus of today have little or no knowledge of the Vedas.

-read the Vedas, not the Puranas

and then,

A British Indologist went to the extent of suggesting

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Herein the problem with your sort is revealed.

"Read the Vedas" --yeah right. I am not correcting you --I am talking straight at you:

"I know when people write from experience & when they are plagerising other's critique(s) and then passing it off as Intellectualism(s) . . . all inorder to 'represent' the contrarian view-point, for your amusement and/or inorder to reconcile bad habits".

 

 

The Vedas are as in-decipherable as the Egyptian & Mayan Hyrogliphics.

BE A MAN AND DO YOUR JOB LIKE A DEVOTE SHUDRA WOULD. [best wishes to you with that]

 

..................................................................

Why do you consider neophytes are reading your posts?

Kali_Upasaka wrote: A British Indologist went to . . . suggest . . .

 

Ah, come on . . . phhhhaleeeez

 

What do the Egyptian grave-robbers say after each thieft? . . . "Stupid Pharohs ..."

 

.................................................

Kali_Upasaka wrote: Everyone swears by Vedas . . . most Hindus . . . no knowledge of the Vedas . . .

 

Dude! Keep your day job! --Now, that would be wisdom!

[bhaktajan]

kaisersose wrote:

". . . unsubstantiated. You . . . want to say - "at the start of Kali yuga" - whenever that was."

 

Now all WE need is proof that kaisersose can "Tell-the-Time-of-the-Day ---all on his own . . . or does he need to rely on Authorities that he follows.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

kaisersose wrote:

"Vyaya appears to be a fickle, "hard to please" character who is in need of therapy. . . . The choice is ours."

 

Instead of realizing that the purpose of the Vedas is to revive the forgetful soul’s lost relationship with the Personality of Godhead, the 'veda-vada-rata' philosophers, sometimes even condemn the Puranas, which are authentic Vedic explanations for laymen.

 

The so-called students of the Vedas are condemned herein because they are ignorant of the actual purpose of the Vedas on account of their disobeying the acaryas.

 

Such 'veda-vada-ratas' search out meanings in every word of the Vedas to suit their own purposes. They do not know that the Vedic literature is a collection of extraordinary books that can be understood only through the chain of disciplic succession.

 

According to the Bhagavad-gita (2.42, 7.15), mistaken mundane educators are known as veda-vada-rata [Those who pose as very learned in the Vedic literature, but are completely diverted from the purpose of the Vedas. The purpose of the Vedas is to know the Personality of Godhead] On the contrary, they are fascinated by such fruitive results as the attainment of heaven.

[raghu]

 

This thread is about one principle. Sectarian Vs non-sectarian Hinduism. There was no reply to my posting on Purva Mimansa. Paramahamsa Yogananda is accused of neo Hinduism. His works are based on Yoga which is an old philosophy. Hatha Yoga and Raja Yoga.

 

I did not reply to your posting because it was tangential and missed the point.

 

The point is not about "sectarian vs non-sectarian Hinduism." As far as traditional Hindu schools go, there is no such thing as "non-sectarian Hinduism" since each of them set out to prove that their explanations were better than all of the others. One need only be motivated by the desire to tell truth to decry the long-held myth, foisted upon us by Neo-Hinduism, of a fictitious Hindu utopia where Vedantists and rishis wrote volumes and volumes of commentaries only to acknowledge that their rivals' differences of opinion were "different but valid" interpretations.

 

Nor did I accuse Paramahamsa Yogananda of anything. I believe I did say that I was not all that familiar with him.

 

 

So in this discussion Purva Mimansa and Yoga are not accepted as classical Hinduism.

 

Who said this? Not me. I would say that the sad-darshanas and Vedanta schools definitely fall in the classical Hinduism category. Please note, for those of you who have difficulty understanding English, that this is not to say that these schools agree with each other on basic ideas of worldview and liberation. They most certainly do not!

 

 

Except for using the term Veda often there is hardly any quotes from the Vedas. The sectarian Hinduism owes its origin mainly to the Agamas/Tantras. Agamic Vaishnavism and Agamic Saivism even claim to be older than the Vedas. There are many scholars who have gone to the extent of saying that Agamas are anti-Vedic. The same accusation is made about Tantras also.

 

Idol worship, temples and other connected rituals came from the Agamas/Tantras and not the Vedas.

 

I would request any member to quote from the Vedas to prove the image worship existed in the Vedic times.

 

Please do not quote the name of the Vedas to justify practices which did not exist in the Vedic times.

 

Multiple misconceptions here, which can be answered by my repeating what I have stated before, namely that Classical Hinduism is based on the Vedas and/or adjunctive literatures which also invoke the authority of the Vedas. Of course, you can further divide classical Hindu traditions into those that are strictly Vedic vs those which are more Puranic, Agamic, etc. Feel free to start a new thread if you wish to discuss that. The purpose of this thread is to delineate the differences between the broad categories of classical/traditional vs neo-Hinduism.

 

 

Non sectarian Hinduism has a very old origin. A sculpture of Harihara dating back to early Hindu period has been discovered.

 

What does this have to do with "non sectarian" Hinduism? What is "sectarian" to you? What is "non-sectarian" to you?

 

 

Many westerners would like Hinduism to be categorized into different sects. Like they have denominations in Christianity, they would like Hinduism to have sects.

 

Well, Hinduism does have sampradayas, which I suppose could be translated as "sects." However, the difference between Hindu sampradayas and Christian sects is that the latter all branched off from the original Christianity, usually based on reform-minded thinkers who objected to the corrupt policies of the Catholic leaders. Hindu sampradayas, by contrast, are usually the result of a commentator who considers his explanations of scripture to be superior to those who previously came before him.

 

I would be very careful about referring to different "sects" of Hinduism. The "sectarian" differences between different Hindu thinkers have a different origin than of those in Christianity.

 

 

Some of the Hindus living in the West would like to project Hinduism as Monotheistic and consisting of sects. They do not like to answer question about different Gods/Goddesses and are embarrassed by deities like Kali. Their answer is to project Hinduism as a monotheistic religion with only one GOD.

 

It is these people who are the Neo-Hindus.

 

I agree with this analysis, spot-on.

 

 

The attack on non-sectarian Hinduism is an attack by these Neo-Hindus on traditional and Upanashidic Hinduism.

 

I do not understand what you mean by this.

 

 

But have we not had enough? Have we not learnt from painful moments in history? Like the long and violent struggle between the followers of Chaintanya Maha Prabhu and Vallabacharya over the control of the temples of Brindavan.

 

Excuse me? What evidence have you over a "long and violent struggle" between these two groups? This is the first I have ever heard of such a thing.

[Guest Subramaniam Swamy]

Hindus today suffer from a terrible complex vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam, because their nations happen to be developed; hence we have neo-Hinduism, no other reason. Hindus have always been rather slavish in their attitude, which is why they were happy to be ruled by foreign powers.

 

Getting acceptance from foreign powers is the most important for most hindus, and that's why people like Vivekananda to Ravishankar twisted our scriptures to make it more 'semitic' in flavor. It's all about dog wagging its tail to appeal to its master.

 

Bottom line, Hinduism and its offshoots like Iskcon (and other neo-vedantic stuff) are dying a slow, painful death. Soon they'll disappear and the world wouldn't be any poorer.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

Kali_Upasaka wrote:

-Puranas are sectarian. Vedas are not.

-Everyone swears by Vedas.

-Most of the Hindus of today have little or no knowledge of the Vedas.

-read the Vedas, not the Puranas

and then,

A British Indologist went to the extent of suggesting

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Herein the problem with your sort is revealed.

"Read the Vedas" --yeah right. I am not correcting you --I am talking straight at you:

"I know when people write from experience & when they are plagerising other's critique(s) and then passing it off as Intellectualism(s) . . . all inorder to 'represent' the contrarian view-point, for your amusement and/or inorder to reconcile bad habits".

 

 

The Vedas are as in-decipherable as the Egyptian & Mayan Hyrogliphics.

BE A MAN AND DO YOUR JOB LIKE A DEVOTE SHUDRA WOULD. [best wishes to you with that]

 

..................................................................

Why do you consider neophytes are reading your posts?

Kali_Upasaka wrote: A British Indologist went to . . . suggest . . .

 

Ah, come on . . . phhhhaleeeez

 

What do the Egyptian grave-robbers say after each thieft? . . . "Stupid Pharohs ..."

 

.................................................

Kali_Upasaka wrote: Everyone swears by Vedas . . . most Hindus . . . no knowledge of the Vedas . . .

 

Dude! Keep your day job! --Now, that would be wisdom!

 

You do not have to be rocket scientist to study and understand the Vedas. I give below excerpts from different Sukthas which proves the Vedic worship of different Gods/goddesses.

 

Vaak Suktham ( attributed to Vak Ambirini a female Rishi) also called Devi Suktham. -- Rig Veda

 

Aham Rudrebhir vasubhir charami,

Aham aadhithyer uta vaisvadevaii,

Aham mithra varunobha bibharmi,

Aham indragni, aham ashvinobha.

 

I move with Rudras and Vasus,

I walk with the Sun and other Gods,

I esteem mithra, varuna

And Indra, fire and the Aswini devas.

 

Aham somam ahaanasam bhibhrami

Aham thwashtaaramr utha pooshanam bhagam,

Aham dadhami dravinam havishmathe,

Supravye yajamanya sunwathe.

 

I esteem Soma, which is extracted,

I support thwastri, pushan and bhaga,

I give wealth to those who perform yagna,

Who reach the gods with offerings.

 

Aham rashtri samgamani vasoonaam,

Chikithushee pradhamaa yagniyaanaam,

Thaam maa devaa vyadhaduha puruthra,

Bhuristhathram bhooyar visayanthim.

 

I am the one who gives wealth to the nation,

I am the first one to whom this sacrifice is addressed,

The gods have found my manifoldness,

And enter in to it and take possession of the manifoldness.

 

Medha Suktham ( in praise of Medha devi (Saraswati)

 

Devi jushamana na aagath,

Viswachi bhadra sumanasyamana,

Thvaya jushta jushamana dhurookthan,

Brahad vadema vidardhe suveera.

 

Let the goddess of intellect come here with happiness,

She is everywhere and has a happy frame of mind,

May we who were grief stricken, before she came,

Become greatly intelligent and know the ultimate.

 

THwaya jushtaa rishir bhavathi devi,

Thwaya brahmagath srirutha thwaya,

Thwaya jushtaschithramvindathe vasu,

Sa no jushasva dravinena medhe.

 

By your grace one becomes a saint,

One becomes learned, one becomes rich,

Showered by your grace one gets different kinds of wealth,

And so goddess of wealth, give us wealth and intellect.

 

Medham ma indro dadathu,

Medham devi Saraswathi.

Medam may ashvinou ubhavadathaam,

Pushkarasrajo.

 

Let Indra give me intelligence,

Let Saraswathi give me intelligence,

Let the Aswini Kumaras support my intelligence,

For they wear the garlands of lotuses.

 

Rudram ( In praise of rudra) - Yajur Veda

 

The great Mrutyunjaya mantra;

 

“Tryambakam yajamahe

Sugandhim pushtivardhanam

Urvarurkamiva bhandhanam

Mrityor mukshiya ma -mrtat.”

 

We salute and respect,

Him who is naturally scented,

Him who looks after his devotees with mercy,

And him who has three eyes.

And pray and request,

To move us away from the catch of death,

Like the cucumber separated from its stalk,

And firmly put us in the path of salvation.

 

Namasthe asthu bhagavan visweswaraaya mahaadevaaya tryambakaaya,

Tripuraanthakaayaa trikagni kaalaaya kaalaagni rudhraaya neela kantaaya,

Mrutyumjayaaya sarveshwaraaya sadashivaaya sriman maha devaaya nama.

 

Salutations to you God,

Who is the lord of the universe,

Who is the greatest among gods,

Who has three eyes,

Who destroyed the three cities,

Who is master of the three fires,

Who is the Rudura who burns the world,

Who has a blue neck,

Who won over the God of death,

Who is Lord of everything,

Who is ever peaceful,

And who is the greatest God with goodness.

Salutations again.

 

I can go on.

 

Making wild accusations or quoting later scriptures can not change facts. One could be a scholar in Bhagavatham and Bagavad Gita. That does not necessarily make him an Vedic scholar.

 

Your quotes regarding Vedic scholars from the Puranas in your recent post shows why the Puranas were considered anti- Vedic. And why a necessity arose for reestablishment of Vaidhika Dharma.

 

Again history tells us that Sakya Muni Buddha was opposed to the ritual religion of the Vedas. That is the reason why Kumarila Bhatta an exponent of Purva Mimansa challenged the Buddhists. We do not see any Purana expert challenging Buddhism. Do we? On the other hand Buddha was made an Avatara of Vishnu.

 

About the knowledge of the Vedas a look at the thread Vedic Verses is self revealing.

 

Name calling is Tamasic. I would prefer the discussions to be Sattvic.

 

I only wish I could take your advice regarding my day job. But that would require a time machine, because the last day-job I did was towards the end of the last century.

[sambya]

raghu you have not yet answered my questions . l asked a few of them months ago when you last visited the forum . but you did not reply . in this thread this is the third time im asking this to you . repated avoidance is a clear indication of you not belonging to any sampradaya and lacking in logical answers .

 

ill summarise the questions once more:

 

1-which is the supreme god in hinduism according to you and what is the process of determining this supremacy ?

 

2-who is your guru ? and the sampradaya ( now that you have not replied to this question for almost 4 times i have good reasons to believe thatyou dont have one !! reading this you might come up with some name in your reply . but isnt the previous silence strong enough the show the truth , that you dont have a guru ? )

 

3-which time period in history can be conclusively said as the time of classical hinduism .

 

4-what are the main scriptures of 'classical hinduism ' ? examples please .

 

5- why was this thread started ? i mean what should a man do after reading this ?

[sambya]

 

Hindus have always been rather slavish in their attitude, which is why they were happy to be ruled by foreign powers.

 

'always' ? what does it mean ? do you mean to say that hindus are slavish since eternity ? the slavishness that you are speaking of was there in the colonial period only . muslim rule harmed the hindu structure but did nothing to create inferirity complex . and present day hindus hardly care for islam(crippled with terrorism) and christianity ! although i dont know whether you have a complex or not !

 

 

 

....................and that's why people like Vivekananda to Ravishankar twisted our scriptures to make it more 'semitic' in flavor. It's all about dog wagging its tail to appeal to its master.

 

 

could'nt you be a bit more respectfull ? i thought this is a spiritual forum and learning to give respect(even to enimies) is one of the basic teachings of spirituality . didnt you know that ?

 

what books of vivekananda have you read ? i mean show me which scripture he willfully twisted into a complete new meaning !! yes show me ! i request !!

[sant]

 

not alll tantra speak of sex . you are speaking of vamamarga of tantra , not the dakshinaachar . vamamarga is corruption of tantra . just like sahajiya vaishnvas are corrupted version of true vaishnavas . now if i say vaishnvas are busy with sex .... will it be just ?

 

 

Ramakrishna himself promoted this vamanmarga left hand path and even praised it and it is said that ramakrishna is one of those who have practised tantra in the orthodox way in our century or something like that.

So vaman marga cannot be corruptedl, it is tantra.

 

As for sahaj they are not vedic either so you stop mentioning them.

They are tantric themselves.

[sambya]

 

Ramakrishna himself promoted this vamanmarga left hand path and even praised it and it is said that ramakrishna is one of those who have practised tantra in the orthodox way in our century or something like that.

So vaman marga cannot be corruptedl, it is tantra.

 

As for sahaj they are not vedic either so you stop mentioning them.

They are tantric themselves.

 

this is why i say , have some elementary knowledge .

 

hmmm !! show me where ramakrishna has praised vamamarga . its a challenge !!

 

instead he advised people to stay out of it froget about promoting it !

 

and even if he did practise it , how would that legitimise vamamarga ?

 

yes sahajiya's are not vedic just like vaishnavism and tantra .

[sant]

Ramakrishna acknowledged the left-hand tantric path, though it had "undesirable features", as one of the "valid roads to God-realization", he consistently cautioned his devotees and disciples against associating with

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna

Sorry not exactly praise but acknowledge

 

 

so you cannot say it is not tantra.

tell me what is in right hand path of tantra?

What of dus mahavidyas they are from here?

[sambya]

acknowledging it and promoting it are not the same terms . learn to quote properly . just after saying that it was a valid path he said that it is like entering the house through the toilet door(remember in his times city dweller had crude toilets on the first floor and the dirt and shit used to be collected by sweepers from a ground floor room just below the bathroom .sometimes burglers used this passage as a means to enter the house ) when you have the front door open .

 

 

so you cannot say it is not tantra.

 

i never said its not tantra . its a deformed and corrupted version of tantra ! just like sahajiya is a corrpted version of vaisnavism .

 

 

tell me what is in right hand path of tantra?

 

tantra proper . focusses on yogic disciplines and bhakti to reach to the supreme tattwa of shakti

[raghu]

 

raghu you have not yet answered my questions

 

Sambya, when you ask questions that are relevant to the thread and intelligent enough to dignify with a response, I will certainly answer them.

 

Raghu

[raghu]

 

Making wild accusations or quoting later scriptures can not change facts. One could be a scholar in Bhagavatham and Bagavad Gita. That does not necessarily make him an Vedic scholar.

 

Your quotes regarding Vedic scholars from the Puranas in your recent post shows why the Puranas were considered anti- Vedic. And why a necessity arose for reestablishment of Vaidhika Dharma.

 

This is getting off topic. The thread is about Classical Hinduism vs Neo-Hinduism. If you want to discuss further the differences between different features of Classical Hinduism such as "Vedic" Hinduism and "Puranic" Hinduism, may I respectfully suggest that you start another thread so that our attention-deficit disorder readers will not get sidetracked?

 

 

Again history tells us that Sakya Muni Buddha was opposed to the ritual religion of the Vedas. That is the reason why Kumarila Bhatta an exponent of Purva Mimansa challenged the Buddhists. We do not see any Purana expert challenging Buddhism. Do we? On the other hand Buddha was made an Avatara of Vishnu.

 

What do you mean by "Purana expert?" Is this a tongue in cheek reference to Vaishnava sampradayas? Because even Vaishnava commentators have specifically taken issue with Buddhist ideas in their Vedanta commentaries.

 

The fact that Buddha is considered a Vishnu-avatar is not a ringing endorsement of Buddhism. Indeed, I have yet to see in the Puranas any endorsement of Buddhism. Please try not to obfuscate the issues just to give yourself reasons to be argumentative.

 

regards,

 

Raghu

[krishnaleela]

I had written this essay some months back, relevant to this discussion. It tries to make a connection between neo-Hinduism and the tendency to propagate the Guru as God - i.e. incarnation or prophet making. (There may be exceptions even prior to colonial times; but the tendency today is definitely more and more imitations of abrahamic faiths.)

 

 

 

 

 

Prophetizing trend in modern Hinduism

 

 

I would like to raise a controversial topic in our religion. No, not the caste system, rather it is the modern trend to incarnation/prophet-making by the disciples of great saints. What about Rama, Krishna – you say? Well, can you find me proof that an organized attempt to propagate their names followed from their time onward? How about we consider instead Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad – the real trend setters of prophet-centric religions? The difference may be fancied as subtle, but it is a big one if we care for the ways of pre-colonial Hinduism – think on it yourself.

The concept of incarnation, specifically Lord Vishnu taking birth on Earth to establish Dharma, is accepted by Smartas and Vaisnavas on scriptural basis; see Bhagavad Gita 4.5-9. From the puranas, we learn of particular incarnations like Rama and Krishna. However Hinduism has (in general) no tradition of massive organizations of disciples seeking to promote their human-gurus as incarnations of God. In recent times, this concept whose roots are in Puranic lore has become liberated. Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna and many of our times are all incarnations of God to the liberal minded Hindu, with the usage of “God” ensuring that the incarnation is not personality-subordinate to a Hindu deity. The basis of determination is no longer the scripture but rather a subjective conclusion that such great men (say) were ‘perfect from birth’ and that their influence on humanity verifies their status.

 

Now if we properly discern, we will find that the incarnation-making tradition in post-colonial Hinduism is parallel to the prophet-centric religions. A prophet-centric religion revolves around a great saint. The message of the saint may be universally applicable, but the organization that preaches on his behalf deliberately propagates his name, not merely as a representative of an eternal message but almost as its owner/originator. Moreover, the pathetic thrust is to make universal the devotional-context of the organization, obviously directed towards or through its prophet. That is, the organization, due to inherent insecurity and greed for foreign markets, is in the business of proselytizing; in abrahamic cults, this is blatant, in modern Hinduism, more subtle but none-the-less the same.

 

The Ramakrishna Math and organizations today of Hindu gurus who stand independent of established sampradaya have all derived inspiration from the prophet models of non-Hindu faiths. The influence is evident in the manner of expression: literary propaganda that stresses the guru’s specialty, constructions of guru-deifying temples that seem alienated from Hinduism, and most critically, directing the devotional context of the organization solely to or through the guru. This effectively allows the organization to stand independent of Hindu culture, except in a superficial sense that is equally applicable to non-Hindu faiths. The service of the poor and the garnering of human resources for this purpose may also find easier execution through the prophet-model; these may be the underlying nobler intentions. However I feel these must be incorporated without promoting our gurus as incarnations of God – this is a trap which our religion has historically avoided.

 

Now let us consider guru-worship within our religion more carefully. At the philosophical level, every Smarta will say “Adi Shankara says this, says that…” and every Sri Vaishnava will say “Sri Ramanuja says this, says that…” Are they not prophetized? Well, admittedly the establishment of Guru-centralized sampradayas came at a later stage in our religion, but thankfully the gurus themselves made it clear that they represented only the scripture/Vedic tradition and not themselves. The disciple is of course free to worship the guru as one with, or even incarnation of a deity, but the devotional context that the sampradaya speaks for is directed to Ishvara – and very importantly, seen as Shiva, Vishnu, etc., and not as the guru (no ‘only savior’, ‘last prophet’ either). That a sampradaya’s devotional objective stands independent of its human-guru is a defining feature of traditional Hinduism.

 

In this regard, a quote of Sri Ramakrishna is worth referring to. He said to a devotee who referred to the saint as God: “I look on myself as a devotee of Krishna, not as Krishna Himself. You may think as you like. You may look on your guru as God.” The same Sri Ramakrishna also gave more eclectic interpretations for the word “incarnation”; definitely they have their place, but in our world unfortunately any room to over-interpret can be a disaster. What may be spoken to particular devotees in particular contexts can be projected by overzealous followers as universal truth - as Christianity has done with Christ. It is the responsibility of modern Hindu organizations to stop pandering to and utilizing the ways of Abrahamic religions. Propagate your gurus as great saints who exemplified the Sanatana Dharma; build them temples if you must, but know that a “Universal temple of [My Guru who is your God]” is neither universal nor Hinduism: it is “radical” hypocrisy and ultimately hurting us all.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

This is getting off topic. The thread is about Classical Hinduism vs Neo-Hinduism. If you want to discuss further the differences between different features of Classical Hinduism such as "Vedic" Hinduism and "Puranic" Hinduism, may I respectfully suggest that you start another thread so that our attention-deficit disorder readers will not get sidetracked?

Yes. I agree that this is off topic. But the discussions arose because you did not define Classical Hinduism. Whether it is Vedic or Purna/Itihasa or something else. sambya also asked the same question. You have not replied.

 

 

What do you mean by "Purana expert?" Is this a tongue in cheek reference to Vaishnava sampradayas? Because even Vaishnava commentators have specifically taken issue with Buddhist ideas in their Vedanta commentaries.

 

The fact that Buddha is considered a Vishnu-avatar is not a ringing endorsement of Buddhism. Indeed, I have yet to see in the Puranas any endorsement of Buddhism. Please try not to obfuscate the issues just to give yourself reasons to be argumentative.

 

regards,

 

Raghu

I meant Saiva , Vaishnava, Saktha and other religions. All these did exist at that time. May be none of them felt challenged by Buddhism. Abhinavagupta was a contemporary figure. But he does not seem to have challenged Buddhist ideas.

The Vaishnava Acharyas came centuries later when Buddhism was almost non existent in India.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

 

Some of the well known God men/women of India.

 

1. The Swaminarayan movement - Here Swaminarayan is GOD. he is considered as Krishna.

 

2. Chaitanya Maha Prabhu whom we consider as GOD.

 

3. Mata Amrithanandamayi.

 

4. Ramana Maharishi.

 

5. Mata Ananda Moyi

 

6. Sri Ragavendra.

 

You will find a complete list here.

 

http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Hinduism/Gurus_and_Saints/

 

The criticism leveled against almost all organizations in their names is similar to what you have stated.