sambya Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 So what value could there be in calling or believing oneself to be a "Hindu"? almost about the same value as in believing yourself to be a vaishnava --- a material word formed from some material phonetic sounds which does nothing in itself to elevate you spiritually !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Why be so attached to a term denoting a varying and contradictory belief systems? What value is there in such attachment. I was born into and American body but I am not an American. I was born into a country and culture that considers itself Christian but you will never hear me call myself a Christian. I have taken birth on Earth in a human form but I am not an earthling or human. Thanks to Srila Prabhupada I am slowly leasning that I aman eternal spirtsoul, a part and parcel of Krishna. It is only by becoming fixed on this platform (brahma bhuta) that we can experience the true oneness of Life withall other living beings and especiallywith Krishna. "The humble sage sees with equal vision....." -Gita I am Black and he is White- therefore we are different. I am Christian and he is Buddhist or Hindu - therefore we are different. Why hang on to the divisive designations of the illusory world of names and and forms which together make up this grand phantasmagoria. Such nonsense mis-conceptions of the self are the very chains that keep us locked onto the wheel of birth and death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 So what value could there be in calling or believing oneself to be a "Hindu"? almost about the same value as in believing yourself to be a vaishnava --- a material word formed from some material phonetic sounds which does nothing in itself to elevate you spiritually !!! So you admit there is no spiritual value in calling yourself a hindu. Thank you. That is my point. I agree with you that there is no value in calling oneself a vaisnava either. Though it may refer to a true conception simply calling oneself a vaisnava is not enough. The value is in realizing the eternal self is Vaisnava in eternal function and acting on that platform. Therefore I do not call myself a vaisnava either even though we all are vaisnavas by constitution. All souls in the material world are fallen or sleeping Vaisnavas and all souls in the Spiritual Sky are awakened Vaisnavas. No one at any stage is a hindu christian buddhist muslim or atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Why be so attached to a term denoting a varying and contradictory belief systems? What value is there in such attachment. I was born into and American body but I am not an American. I was born into a country and culture that considers itself Christian but you will never hear me call myself a Christian... ...cannot be taken seriously because you are not honest. If you were to apply this logic uniformly, then someone would take you seriously. But since you try to apply a special set of rules to the label Vaishnava - your whole position is undermined. Now you can say it was not your idea, but someone else's, but that is really beside the point. In short, double standards are a sure way to lose credibility. If I cannot respect the other man's belief, then I should not be expecting any from others. But then, haven't we had this conversation several times already? Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adiyen Dasan Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I am so sorry to bring this topic here. Sincere apologies for that. I was wondering how I could start a thread. Couldn't find any help option to guide me through. PLease help. Sorry for inconvenience. SOmeone PM me please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 No problem Adiyen. Simpy click on the title spiritual discussions. The list of threads appear At the top you will see a box with the words 'new thread'. Click on 'new thread' and post up and your new thread will be established Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I was born into and American body but I am not an American. I was born into a country and culture that considers itself Christian but you will never hear me call myself a Christian. I have taken birth on Earth in a human form but I am not an earthling or human. Thanks to Srila Prabhupada I am slowly leasning that I aman eternal spirtsoul, a part and parcel of Krishna. this not not 'learning' indian scriptures , when saying that the self is not the body , the caste , the sex , meant to educate people about the real aim in life and about the nature of their true self . it taught the people to gradually dissociate themselves from these temporary designations and look beyond the superficial truth . it was aimed at teaching non-attachement . but what you are doing here is subtly condemning the hindu faith and passing it off as non-attachment . ill give you an example - mahaprabhu knew his eternal position with krishna and that the relationship with his mother is only for this life . he adopted sannyasa as a recognition of his spiritual position . but still he kept his respect fro his mother intact and obeyed by her commands . he dis-associated himself from her but his love for her never reduced a bit !! this is real non-attachement and this in what is necessary in spirituality for progress !! what you are doing is actually more attachment than non-attachment . previously you were attached to christianity or hinduism ...........now all of sudden you learn that vaishnavism is the way..................and focus all your attention and attachments to vaishnavsim disrespecting others . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 what you are doing is actually more attachment than non-attachment . previously you were attached to christianity or hinduism ...........now all of sudden you learn that vaishnavism is the way..................and focus all your attention and attachments to vaishnavsim disrespecting others . No actually I never had an attachment to Christianity or Hinduism as I grew up an atheist and remain one until I was 18 or so and discovered theism by the grace of Supersoul. A few months later Prabhupada's disciples open a temple where I lived and I was attracted to the theism as taught by the Gaudiya's as the highest conception. All religions are meant as a bridge to the eternal religon. Once that bridge is crossed and one is on the other side there is no more need to stay on the bridge. You say I disrespect hinduism. My point is that what is presently called hinduism is such a confusing contradictary mess that it is best to get to the essence and concentrate one's energies there. Besides there never was a better bridge to pure bhakti than sadhana bhakti. Human life is so very short and the times we are living in are so tumultuous and deeply materialistic that there is no time to waste. We must seek the shelter of the Lord immediately as one would in an emergency situation. When the home is on fire no one stops to read something on the way out of the house. The focus is to get to safety. Attachment to Krishna bhakti is real detachment from everything else. That certainly remains a distant goal for me but the goal nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venugopal.t.v Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 no one does not have to be born as a hindu to be a hindu. hinduism is a way of life .in hinduism importance is given to all aspects of life. one is expected to fulfill all the 4 "palapurushartha's " in life in a morally & ethically correct way. any one who leads such a life is a hindu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 My point is that what is presently called hinduism is such a confusing contradictary mess that it is best to get to the essence and concentrate one's energies there. what is 'mess' ? what mess are you speaking of ? if you mean changes in the fold of hinduism , isnt that a common phenomeneon all through the world in respect of all religions ? is not other religions also in equal mess ? isnt gaudiya vaishnavism itself a mess in that sense ? lastly , by your theory , iskcon movement would be the greatest mess(in all sense) ever in the history of religious movements. !!! elaborate this mythical term that you have coined -- mess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 what is 'mess' ? what mess are you speaking of ? The so-called mess obviously exists only in his mind. This is nothing new..he has been spinning this Hinduism = mess rant for several years now, including the Jesus = Vaishnava and Mayavada = poison theories. These theories stem from a very common affliction of double standards and intolerance, found among his distinguished peers. Surprisingly, he has let his obsession on the last two theories go. Based on that, there is still some hope left that he will someday stop poking his nose into Hindu threads. If he has problems calling himself an American, then he has more serious issues to worry about, in my opinion. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 What value is there in calling one's self an American? Or Indian? Or a human being? These are all terms of convenience we use to communicate ideas efficiently. We do not as a matter of convention say, "the spirit soul within the American body" or "the spirit soul within the Indian body." That would be verbose and unwieldy. It's not a spiritual vs material issue. It's an issue of communication. Language is characterized by covenience and clarity while philosophy is characterized by its attempt to understand reality. Try to grasp the difference before parading your ignorance for all to see. The term "Hinduism" does not denote any specific beliefs, other than perhaps theoretical respect for the authority of the Vedas and belief in the body/soul dichotomy, reincarnation, and some other cultural features seen in religions which flourished in India prior to Islamic and colonialism. Beyond that, the term does not imply impersonalism or mayavada, as both you and sambya and other neo-Vedantins are apt to think. The etymological derivation of the term "Hindu" is geographic in origin, not scriptural or philosophical. When someone asks if it is possible to convert to "Hinduism," the correct answer is to inquire about which form of "HInduism" he is looking into. For all you know, he could be thinking about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. "Hindu" has certain meanings as described previously. Similarly, "servant" has certain meanings, "God" has certain meanings, "brahmin" has certain meanings, etc. The word "marriage" also has certain meanings, despite the desperate attempts of your swamis to rationalize "gay marriage" which is an oxymoron. All this linguistic revisionism that your people take to undermines your intellectual credibility and makes you come across as a bunch of uneducated cultists. Of course, if that is what you want, then far be it for me to stand in your way. But since an outsider came here asking a question about "Hinduism," you owe it to him to display at least a modicum of intellectual honesty in your response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Even as a means of communication it is useless as it could have so many different meaning froms from the worship of nature spirits to demigods an d from Advaita to Dvaita. The confusion is seen in the starting post to this thread. The writer wants to know how to becvome a hindu and if he has to be born into a hindu family first. He has obvious taken up the notion that there is some spiritual benefit in wearing the label hindu. Where did he pick up this erroneous idea? From all the people putting forth the idea that the word hindu is synonomous with sanatana dharma. Why do you keep arguing this point? Just use sanatan dharma and drop the confusing term hindu. Problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Even as a means of communication it is useless as it could have so many different meaning froms from the worship of nature spirits to demigods an d from Advaita to Dvaita. The confusion is seen in the starting post to this thread. The writer wants to know how to becvome a hindu and if he has to be born into a hindu family first. He has obvious taken up the notion that there is some spiritual benefit in wearing the label hindu. Where did he pick up this erroneous idea? From all the people putting forth the idea that the word hindu is synonomous with sanatana dharma. Why do you keep arguing this point? Just use sanatan dharma and drop the confusing term hindu. Problem solved. OK Theist, I give kudos to you for your attempts to come across as dense. Let me just quote from Caitanaya Caritamrta, translated by your very own A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, to make the point you are deliberately trying not to grasp: CC 1.17.174: tumikājī — hindu-dharma-virodheadhikārī ebeyenākaramānābujhitenāpāri SYNONYMS tumi — you; kājī — the magistrate; hindu-dharma — the religious principles of the Hindus; virodhe — in opposing; adhikārī — have the right; ebe — now; ye — that; nākaramānā — you do not forbid; bujhite — to understand; nāpāri — Iam not able. TRANSLATION "As a Muslim magistrate, you have the right to oppose the performance of Hindu ceremonies, but now you do not forbid them. I cannot understand the reason why." CC 1.17.159: prabhukahe, — vedekahe go-vadhaniṣedha ataevahindu-mātranākare go-vadha SYNONYMS prabhukahe — the Lord replied; vede — in the Vedas; kahe — is enjoined; go-vadha — cow-killing; niṣedha — prohibition; ataeva — therefore;hindu — Hindu; mātra — any; nā — does not; kare — execute; go-vadha — cow-killing. TRANSLATION Refuting the Kazi's statement, the Lord immediately replied, "The Vedas clearly enjoin that cows should not be killed. Therefore every Hindu, whoever he may be, avoids indulging in cow-killing. So Theist, why the confusion here? Why did Sri Caitanya and Krishnadas Kaviraj use the term "Hindu?" Where is this term "Hindu" coming into play? Why were Sri Caitanya and Sri Krishnadas Kaviraj so attached to the term "HIndu?" Why not just say "santana-dharma?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Even as a means of communication it is useless as it could have so many different meaning froms from the worship of nature spirits to demigods an d from Advaita to Dvaita. The confusion is seen in the starting post to this thread. The writer wants to know how to becvome a hindu and if he has to be born into a hindu family first. He has obvious taken up the notion that there is some spiritual benefit in wearing the label hindu. Where did he pick up this erroneous idea? From all the people putting forth the idea that the word hindu is synonomous with sanatana dharma. Why do you keep arguing this point? Just use sanatan dharma and drop the confusing term hindu. Problem solved. Here is more "Hindu" confusion from Sri Krishnadas Kaviraj, author of Sri Caitanya Caritamrita: CC Madhya 16.180: Arriving in that way, the Muslim governor was respectfully brought before Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by the mahā-pātra. The governor then stood before the Lord with folded hands, and he chanted the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. CC Madhya 16.181: The governor then submissively asked, "Why was I born in a Muslim family? This is considered a low birth. Why didn't supreme Providence grant me a birth in a Hindu family? CC Madhya 16.182: "If I had taken birth in a Hindu family, it would have been easy for me to remain near Your lotus feet. Since my body is now useless, let me die immediately." Now, someone needs to explain to Sri Krishnadas Kaviraj Gosvami, that the term "Hindu" , and that he should not be so attached to this term. After all, it just applies to the body. Obviously Krishnadas Kaviraj is very attached to the term "Hindu." Shame on him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 http://vedabase.net/sb/3/4/22/ (Prabhupada's commentary on Bhagavatam3.4.22) Badarikāśrama in the Himalayas, the abode of the Nara-Nārāyaṇa sages, is a great place of pilgrimage for the Hindus. Even up to the present, hundreds and thousands of pious Hindus go to pay respects to the incarnation of Godhead Nara-Nārāyaṇa. It appears that even five thousand years ago this holy place was being visited by such a holy being as Uddhava, and even at that time the place was known to be very, very old. This particular pilgrimage site is very difficult to visit for ordinary men because of its difficult situation in the Himalayas in a place which is covered by ice almost all year. A few months during the summer season people can visit this place at great personal inconvenience. There are four dhāmas, or kingdoms of God, which represent the planets of the spiritual sky, which consists of the brahmajyoti and the Vaikuṇṭhas. These are Badarikāśrama, Rameśvara, Jagannātha Purī and Dvārakā. Faithful Hindus still visit all these holy places for perfection of spiritual realization, following in the footsteps of devotees like Uddhava. Someone needs to explain to Sri Prabhupada not to be so attached to the term "Hindu.Hindu" is not a spiritual term, and it is not right for him to speak of "Hindus" since that is a confusing term. He should just have said "santana dharma" and that would have been clear. He is obviously attached to the term "Hindu." This is very bad for spiritual realization and we must correct him immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 And once again, from http://vedabase.net/sb/6/2/5-6/ "The mass of people should always feel security because of the government's protection. Therefore, how regrettable it is for the government itself to cause a breach of trust and put the citizens in difficulty for political reasons. We actually saw during the partition days in India that although Hindus and Muslims were living together peacefully, manipulation by politicians suddenly aroused feelings of hatred between them, and thus the Hindus and Muslims killed one another over politics." How dare Prabhupada use the term "Hindu?" Does he not know that "Hindu" is an unclear term,and worthy only of derision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umapati_Dasa Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 So if one wants to pretend to be a hindu there may or may not be such a rule. But my point is that is not spiritual. Hinduism is one way that spirituality can be expressed. It is merely the designation that sets the spirituality of those who worship Krishna, Devi, Shiva, etc... apart from that of people who worship Allah or Jehovah or Olorun. It's not that Hinduism is non-spiritual, it's just that it is a medium through which spirituality is expressed. Hinduism (whatever that is) is not synonomous with Krishna consciousness. Vaishnavism is synonomous with "Krishna consciousness", which means that form of Hinduism is synonymous with "Krishna consciousness"... unless you think that consciousness of Krishna is different from worship and love for Krishna? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 At this point I believe Theist will now post something to the effect that I am argumentative, bigoted, mundane mayavadi, etc.... That's what you do when someone proves you to be wrong. Don't concede the point because then people will see that you can make mistakes. Just attack the other guy. Problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Vaishnavism is synonomous with "Krishna consciousness", which means that form of Hinduism is synonymous with "Krishna consciousness"... unless you think that consciousness of Krishna is different from worship and love for Krishna? Wrong sir. Hinduism is not Krishna consciousness. Just ask any Advaitin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 At this point I believe Theist will now post something to the effect that I am argumentative, bigoted, mundane mayavadi, etc.... That's what you do when someone proves you to be wrong. Don't concede the point because then people will see that you can make mistakes. Just attack the other guy. Problem solved. Oh, and who have I attacked on this thread thus far? You on the other hand just attacked me. I am just offering a countering view to the idea that hinduism is eternal religion. I really have no hope in swaying the people on this board but perhaps a listener or two will see another perspective to consider. This is a good time for me to exit this conversation. Hare krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umapati_Dasa Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Wrong sir. Hinduism is not Krishna consciousness. Just ask any Advaitin. I said Vaishnavism, a sect of Hinduism, is Krishna consciousness. Meaning that one form of Hinduism is devoted to Krishna consciousness. Advaita Vedanta, a different sect of Hinduism, is Nirguna Brahman consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I said Vaishnavism, a sect of Hinduism, is Krishna consciousness. Meaning that one form of Hinduism is devoted to Krishna consciousness.Advaita Vedanta, a different sect of Hinduism, is Nirguna Brahman consciousness. Yes you are right. I read it wrong. Your mistake is thinking Vaisnavism has a source in hinduism. Actually Vaisnavism is the eternal funtion of the soul a point I have made before. Krishna said not to be distracted by the flowery words of the vedas. Just concentrate on Him. Bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umapati_Dasa Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 How is Vaishnavism not a form of Hinduism? Hinduism is the religion whose beliefs involve the gods Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, and Devi. Vaishnavism's beliefs include these figures. What you're saying is like a Sunni Muslim saying that Sunni Islam isn't a form of Islam. Or a Roman Catholic saying that Roman Catholicism isn't a form of Christianity. It makes no sense. Yes you are right. I read it wrong. Your mistake is thinking Vaisnavism has a source in hinduism. Actually Vaisnavism is the eternal funtion of the soul a point I have made before. Krishna said not to be distracted by the flowery words of the vedas. Just concentrate on Him. Bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Actually Vaisnavism is the eternal funtion of the soul a point I have made before. No. Actually Shaivism is the eternal function of the soul, a point I am making now. Or Shaktism, Bahaism...any of those. Krishna said not to be distracted by the flowery words of the vedas. Just concentrate on Him. Bye Really? I suppose in theist's world, the Vedas are offering up definitions of Hinduism which we are supposed to ignore. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.