Advaitha as the religion of muslims,greeks,china,Red indians,Jews and jananese.

[Guest guest]

I always believed that Hinduism was the only religion that existed earlier.Bhrammi libi was the only language that existed, swasthika was the only holy symbol that existed.Now I have exciting proof for that.The religion of the pre historic world was hinduism That is advaitha.I dont want to enter into advaitha dwaitha debate here.But rather the evidence i got here is only about advaitha,

 

Do you know the various religions that follow advaithic principle of "god is everything?"

 

I will start of with Islam.Sufyism.Do you know the founding base of sufyism?

 

"The existence of all created things is His existence. Thou dost not see, in this world or the next, anything beside God."

 

"For He will not have anything to be other than He. Indeed, the other is He, and there is no otherness.[TB]"

 

"Thou art not thou: thou art He. Thou never wast nor wilt be, Thou art neither ceasing to be nor still existing. Thou art He. [TB]

Thou art not what is beside God. Thou art thine own end and thine own object in thy search after thy Lord. [TB]"

 

source:http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/ibnarabi.htm

 

Islam says so.can you believe?Sufyits were punished by islamic kalifs severely than hindus.They were declared as infidels and non muslims.We will come to that later.

 

Next we see greek Pantheism.Panthos means all theism is god.pantheism says all is god.

 

"the created universe is its own maker and creator. [Hippolytus 9.9]

 

"This cosmos, the same for all, was not made by gods or men, but always was and is and ever shall be ever-living fire, igniting in measures and extinguishing in measures. [b30]" (hera klitl)

 

source:http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/heraklit.htm

 

Aristotle was an advaithi.Yes,, what did he say?

 

Thales thought that everything was full of gods. [Aristotle, On the Soul]

 

He said that death is no different from life.

"Then why don't you die?" someone asked him.

"Because it makes no difference," he replied. [ibid.]

 

source:http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/greekmat.htm

 

Taoism from china is exactly like hinduism.Hinduism says everything is athma.It has no beginning,no end.It is all.

 

Taoism says same thing.

 

"There is a thing, formless yet complete.

Before heaven and earth it existed.

Without sound, without substance,

it stands alone and unchanging.

It is all-pervading and unfailing.

One may think of it as the mother of all beneath Heaven.

We do not know its name, but we call it Tao."

 

Toaism also talks about this Tao being "nirguna bhramman".Without charecteristics.

 

"The Great Tao flows everywhere.

It may go left or right.

All things depend on it for life, and it does not turn away from them.

It accomplishes its tasks, but does not claim credit for it.

It clothes and feeds all things, but does not claim to be master over them.

Always without desires, it may be called the Small.

All things come to it and it does not master them;

it may be called The Great."

 

And see further.It says exactly same thing about athma as in geetha and vedas.

 

We look at it and do not see it;

Its name is the invisible.

We listen to it and do not hear it;

Its name is the inaudible.

We touch it and do not find it;

Its name is the Subtle (formless).

These three cannot be further probed,

and hence merge into one . . .

Infinite and boundless, it cannot be given any name;

It reverts to nothingness.

This is called shape without shape, form without object.

It is the vague and elusive.

Meet it and you will not see its head.

Follow it and you will not see its back.

 

source:http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/laotzu.htm

 

I will continue in my replies

 

 

[Guest guest]

taoism also talks about Maya.It talks about jeevathma and paramathma and how both are one and same.

 

"Non-Being is the term given to that from which Heaven and Earth sprang.

Being is the term given to the mother that rears all things . . . [bodde]

The two are the same,

But after they are produced , they have different names.

The two together we call the Mystery.

It is the Mystery of Mysteries. [bodde]."

 

source:http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/laotzu.htm

 

It talks on oneness of jeevathma and paramathma.

 

Clay is molded to form a vessel,

But it is on its non-being that the usefulness of the utensil depends.

Doors and windows are cut to make a room,

but it is on its non-being that the utility of the room depends.

11.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Judaism also says so.so.They have realized advaithic stage.See what kabbalah judaism says.It is the mystical form of jewism.

Moses cordovero said

"Do not say "This is a stone and not God."

God forbid!

Rather, all existence is God,

and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity."

 

Kabbalah jewism talks about nirguna bhramman.yes,nirguna bhramman.

 

Underlying everything is Ein Sof, the infinite, undefinable origin of all things, the cause of causes. Ein Sof is often seen not as an old man with a white beard, not as a personal God at all, but as an

impersonal, unnameable Being without qualities, thoughts or feelings, very similar to

 

Non-duality: nothing exists but Ein Sof, the endless.

 

The essence of divinity is found in every single thing - nothing but it exists. Since it causes every thing to be, no thing can live by anything else. It enlivens them; its existence exists in each existent. Do not attribute duality to God. Let God be solely God. If you suppose that Ein Sof emanates until a certain point, and that from that

point on is outside of it, you have dualized. God forbid! Realize, rather, that Ein Sof exists in each existent. Do not say "This is a stone and not God." God forbid! Rather, all existence is God, and the

stone is a thing pervaded by divinity.

Moses Cordovero, Shi'ur Qomah

 

 

source:http://members.aol.com/PHarri5642/kabbalah.htm

[Guest guest]

We should know that all things are the works of the Great Spirit. We should know that He is within all things: the trees, the grasses, the rivers, the mountains, and all the four-legged animals, and the winged peoples; and even more important, we should understand that He is also above these things and peoples.

 

I was moved by their attoitude towards white men who killed them.

 

But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people? Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea. It is the order of nature, and regret is useless. Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man . . . cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We will see.

 

Seealth, chief of the Squamish, 1854, as reported by Henry Smith in the Seattle Sunday Star, 1887.

 

source:http://members.aol.com/pantheism0/indians.htm

 

So it is clear.Hinduism was the solitary religion of the world.Bhramman was the god.

 

I will write on swasthika and bhrammi libhi later.

[Guest guest]

The swastika ( ) is an ancient symbol. Dating back 3,000 years, the swastika predates the ancient Egyptian symbol, the Ankh (). Approximately 3,000 years ago (1000 BCE), the swastika was commonly used; swastikas have been found on many artifacts such as pottery and coins dating from ancient Troy.

 

During the following thousand years, the image of the swastika could be found in many cultures around the world, including in China, Japan, India, and southern Europe.

 

By the Middle Ages, the swastika was a well known, if not commonly used, symbol but was called by many different names:

China - wan

England - fylfot

Germany - Hakenkreuz

Greece - tetraskelion and gammadion

India - swastika

Though it is not known for exactly how long, Native Americans also had long used the symbol of the swastika."

 

http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/swas.html

 

http://www.blackcrescent.com/w7_SV_05.html

 

http://www.erm.ee/vanast/naitus/symbol/svastika.html

 

http://www.albertlowe.com/genswa.html

 

and HERE is the really good page showing the jewish swastika and others....

 

http://www.heathenworld.com/swastika/

 

here is something about a pink swastika http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/8706/

[Guest guest]

The philosopher and researcher Edward Pococke also wrote about this conclusion in his book India in Greece (page 251). He states: "Sir William Jones concluded that the Hindus had an immemorial antiquity with the old Persians, Ethiopians and Egyptians, the Phoenicians, Greeks and Tuscans, the Scythians or Goths, and the Celts, the Chinese, Japanese and Peruvians." The observance of this global connection between India and the rest of the world is actually an indication that the whole world was once under the influence of the Vedic culture. Thus, it was India who nurtured the rest of the world with her wisdom and Vedic knowledge.

 

Pococke continues in this vein in his observation: "Now the whole of the society of Greece, civil and military, must strike one as being eminently Asiatic, much of it specially Indian. . . I shall demonstrate that these evidences were but the attendant tokens of Indian colonization with its corresponding religion and language. I shall exhibit dynasties disappearing from India, western India, to appear again in Greece, clans who fought upon the plains of Troy." Therefore, since Greece is supposed to be the origins of European culture, and since Greece displays much of the same culture as India, we can say that the pre-Christian culture of Europe was Vedic.

 

In fact, it may be the case that without the connection with India, Greece may not have been a major contributor to the advancement of Europe. Godfrey Higgins writes in his book The Celtic Druids (p. 112), "In science the Greeks were pygmies. What would they have known of science if their Platos and Pythagorases had not traveled into the East! In science and real learning they were inferior to the Orientals [indians], and were the greatest liars upon earth. They wilfully mis-stated everything or they foolishly confounded everything."

 

William Durant, author of the 10-volume Story of Civilization, wrote, "India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of European languages. She was the mother of our philosophy. . . of our mathematics. . . of the ideals embodied in Christianity. . . of self-government and democracy. . . Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all."

 

 

[Guest guest]

you have not discovered such great thing, everyone if not completely blinded by the material energy recognizes that the world and the universe are pervaded by the same omnipervasive energy

 

the next step is to recognize a personal source of this energy

 

 

if there's energy, there's an energetic too

if there's laws, there's one who made and mantains laws

 

vishnu.. the mantainer

[Guest guest]

Sufism predates Islam. Sufism was a spiritual practice of the arabian pagan religion (before Islam) that was adopted by some muslim groups, although it contradicts orthodox Islam. For this reason, the status of Sufism in Islam is questioned and for some muslims rejected. Alot of muslims don't agree with 'pirs' like Salim Chistie and accuse him of being a wannabe Prophet (none accepted after Mohammed.)

 

Advaita is indeed great, but what I dislike is that some groups make out as if Sankaracharya made it. This is incorrect as there were many Advaitists before Sankaracharya as can be seen in the Upanishads. Even Sankaracharya mentions previous advaitists. But Advaita is mentioned alongside Sankaracharya because he did the most to popularise it throughout India, to make it be known to the common people. I think before him most sages kept it to themselves or only discussed it with other sages.

 

www.kamakoti.org

[Guest guest]

How do you know it's not the other way around? That Hinduism is result of some of the other religions that you are mentioning.

[Guest guest]

Does it matter?by whatever name u call it, it is hinduism.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

There is nothing more misleading and wrong as advaitha for it is nothing but atheism. All advaitha teachers are themselves being mislead and mislead others to darkness and nothing more.

 

Upanishads also teach mono-theism and not advaitha.

[Guest guest]

Atheism is proclaiming there is NO god, no superior force behind anything in this world. At the same time, it implies that whatever we see is the truth, and nothing more or less.

 

That is not advaita, which proclaims the opposite of this. It states that all of us are under the illusion that we're different from one another, that we are separate from the universe, while in fact we are one and the same. It is our goal to eliminate this distinction and realize the truth: we are divine in quality and we should harmonize our existence with the universe, since the universe and us are the same.

 

Does that mean there is NO creator god? It depends on how you look at it. Did a god "create" us, or are we actually part of that which we call "God"?

 

God in this context could mean our collective consciousness which is endowed with much more power than our seemingly individual consciousness. Krishna could be a manifestation of this collective consciousness, and so could Jesus, Ram, and so many other incarnations of God.

 

Maybe we can think of this universe as a manifestation of our consciousness, collectively. We can alter our lives, our experiences and such only in a way that directly relates to us and nobody else, since it is up to others to also realize the truth. The law of karma may, as Buddhists believe, be the ultimate deciding factor in our lives, if we actually let it be. As Krishna said in the Bhagavad-Gita, he does not interfere. If he doesn't, then who does, aside from ourselves and the karma that we are subject to as long as we live under the illusion we are separate from the universe and at constant odds with it.

 

Advaita doesn't mean atheism, it just means we are all a part of god, so in a sense we are all gods ourselves.

 

 

[Guest guest]

the word GOD is a personalist concept, person means name, form, features.. and god means also that an individual is supreme and other individuals are subordinated

 

collective consciousness is not god.. maybe some sort of pantheism

 

if there's no distinction between me, other living beings and god, the result is that the only possible existence is a big and lonely ME.. so where's god

 

so advaita is essentially atheist

[Guest guest]

The vedas don't speak of a personal god, do they? They talk of Brahman as formless, but capable of taking form from time to time in the universe, to restore the balance between righteousness and unrighteousness.

 

Besides, this doesn't really mean that there is no personal God or whatever.

 

Until you realize the truth, there MAY be a personal God out there, but when you realize the truth, suddenly there is no distinction between you and that personal God. You realize that you ARE that god, or at least a part of that god.

 

In other words, the idea of a personal God is not wrong, but it may not be the highest truth either.

 

Perhaps we (as in our collective consciousness) are our own creater, preserver, and destroyer ultimately, but we also "will" a personal God into existence.

 

By the way, how do you account for the differences that the Buddhists have with the Hindus in their perception of there being a god and such? Surely, Buddha experienced the same thing the Hindu mystics did, and he and his followers are just describing it in a different way. Nirvana is no different from Kundalini, so they should be seeing the same thing when the Shakti rises to the 7th chakra.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In other words, the idea of a personal God is not wrong, but it may not be the highest truth either.

--if this god is only a concept that it will be destroyed by higher realizations, it is not real and it has not a real existence.. so, again, atheism

 

Perhaps we (as in our collective consciousness) are our own creater, preserver, and destroyer ultimately

--and this is very unreal and fruit of fantasy

 

By the way, how do you account for the differences that the Buddhists have with the Hindus in their perception of there being a god and such

---advaitism says that individual existence is maya. There's some buddhisms who are essentially advaitisms without using vedas as sources of informations and there are buddhisms sayng that not only individual existence is maya but that existence in itself is an illusion.....

[Guest guest]

are u priya vaishnav?

 

 

"The vedas don't speak of a personal god, do they? They talk of Brahman as formless, but capable of taking form from time to time in the universe, to restore the balance between righteousness and unrighteousness"

 

 

umm, have you read vedas? they say the personal god is higher than his impersonal brahm aspect

 

"In other words, the idea of a personal God is not wrong, but it may not be the highest truth either.

"

 

maybe according to keval advaitha, but not according to vedas

 

"when you realize the truth, suddenly there is no distinction between you and that personal God. You realize that you ARE that god, or at least a part of that god

"

 

you realize there is no dual (mayik) distinction between the sadhaka and that personal god, there is however inconceivable nondual distinction. Keval advaithins cant understand this vedik truth

 

"Perhaps we (as in our collective consciousness) are our own creater, preserver, and destroyer ultimately, but we also "will" a personal God into existence

"

 

careful, this is atheistic philosophy. where do u get these ideas from

 

"Nirvana is no different from Kundalini, so they should be seeing the same thing when the Shakti rises to the 7th chakra

"

 

where did you learn this from? i dont know of any kundalini saint that says the buddhist nirvana is the goal of kundalini meditation. Rather ive seen them say to go past the void (nirvana)

 

"By the way, how do you account for the differences that the Buddhists have with the Hindus in their perception of there being a god and such? Surely, Buddha experienced the same thing the Hindu mystics did, and he and his followers are just describing it in a different way

"

 

buddha was visnu avatar whose purpose was to teach a philosophy to bewilder the abusers of the vedas

[Guest guest]

"By the way, how do you account for the differences that the Buddhists have with the Hindus in their perception of there being a god and such? Surely, Buddha experienced the same thing the Hindu mystics did, and he and his followers are just describing it in a different way. Nirvana is no different from Kundalini, so they should be seeing the same thing when the Shakti rises to the 7th chakra

"

 

how does mayavad account for the fact that no other hindu sect accepts its philosophy as valid

[Guest guest]

Is this thread a debate on advaita and dvaita?Havent you people the heart to appreciate that Taoism,judaism all preach advaitha,which is a feather in the cap for hindus?When will you people learn to unite even after slaughtered like animals for 1000 years by moslems?

 

Let me congratulate priya for this thought provoking research work.You guys should appreciate the fact that advaita is the religion of the world,even though you have other opinions on it.

 

You people can do more research on the following topic and enlighten us.

 

1)Was hinduism wide spread world over as priya claims?

2)Why was swastika worshipped by whole world?Does it indicate a world religion?

3)If these claims are true,then this message should be taken over the whole world.It is the duty of every hindu.Do it immaterial of whether you are dwaidi or tridhi or milliondhi.

 

When enemy is attacking you with vigour,when cannon balls attack your wall,somebody from your side goes out and attacks them back.Isnt it the time to support him/her?Or will you debate on the weapon he/she uses?

 

Advaita or dvaita,who cares?Its hinduism.Vedic way of life.

So stop infighting and spread the message.

[Guest guest]

[umm, have you read vedas? they say the personal god is higher than his impersonal brahm aspect]

 

I doubt even YOU have read the Vedas. If the Vedas say personal god is higher than impersonal can you prove it? Give us some quotes with references? It seems you are just repeating parrot-fashion what someone else told you.

 

[buddha was visnu avatar whose purpose was to teach a philosophy to bewilder the abusers of the vedas]

 

Vaishnavas are not qualified to speak about Buddhism or Buddha as he did not teach Vaishnavism, but Buddhism - his own path. The Vaishnavas simply tired to 'absorb' him into their movement and try to make out that Buddhists have got it all wrong! It's just like what the muslims did with the jewish prophets, adopted them into Islam and changed it around to suit their ideas.

[Guest guest]

mahataH paramavyaktamavyaktAtpuruSaH paraH |

puruSAnna paraM kiMcitsA kASThA sA parA gatiH || kathopanisad 1.3.11||

 

divyo hyamUrtaH puruSaH sa bAhyAbhyantaro hyajaH |

aprANo hyamanAH zubhro hyakzarAT parataH paraH || mundakopanisad 2.1.2||

 

yadA pazyaH pazyate rukmavarNaM

kartAramIzaM puruSaM brahmayoniM |

tadA vidvAnH puNyapApe vidhUya

niraJjanaH paramaM sAmyamupaiti || mundaka 3.1.3||

 

 

His abode:

 

sa vedaitatH paramaM brahma dhAma

yatra vizvaM nihitaM bhAti zubhramH |

upAsate puruSaM ye hyakAmAste

zukrametadativartanti dhIrAH || mundaka 3.2.1 ||

 

nAyamAtmA balahInena labhyo

na ca pramAdAtH tapaso vApyaliGAtH |

etairupAyairyatate yastu vidvAM-

stasyaiSa AtmA vizate brahmadhAma || 3.2.4 ||

 

vedAntavijJAnasunizcitArthAH

saMnyAsayogAdH yatayaH zuddhasattvAH |

te brahmalokeSu parAntakAle

parAmRtAH parimucyanti sarve || 3.2.6||

 

 

Most likely youll look at 'advaita' translatins that put a twist on these verses interpreting them to fit into 'advaita' philosophy.

 

 

"[buddha was visnu avatar whose purpose was to teach a philosophy to bewilder the abusers of the vedas]

 

Vaishnavas are not qualified to speak about Buddhism or Buddha as he did not teach Vaishnavism, but Buddhism - his own path. The Vaishnavas simply tired to 'absorb' him into their movement and try to make out that Buddhists have got it all wrong!

"

 

Bhagavat Puran 11.4.22: To diminish the burden of the earth, the unborn Lord will take birth in the Yadu dynasty and perform feats impossible even for the demigods. Propounding speculative philosophy, the Lord, as Buddha, will bewilder the unworthy performers of Vedic sacrifices. And as Kalki the Lord will kill all the low-class men posing as rulers at the end of the age of Kali

 

 

you probably wont accept this coz 'advaithins' dont care for Vyas' Bhagvat anyway or anything else from vedas that doesnt agree with their philosophy. Thats their style, picking select verses that they can interpret to suit their philosophy. What doesnt agree they call it lower teachings. They have no respect for vyas tho they may fool themselves that they do.

 

 

" If the Vedas say personal god is higher than impersonal can you prove it? Give us some quotes with references?

"

 

'advaitins' arbitrarily claim its the other way around but cant give any proof. In vyas' vedanta sutra the personal god is the goal but according keval advaita this is the lower sagun brahm (personal god). In other words, 'advaita' knows better than vyas

 

Here's more on personal god being higher than his impersonal aspect:

 

Bhagavat 3.32.26

 

jJAna-mAtraM paraM brahma

paramAtmezvaraH pumAn

dRzy-AdibhiH pRthag bhAvair

bhagavAn eka Iyate

 

5.12.11

 

jJAnaM vizuddhaM paramArtham ekam

anantaraM tv abahir brahma satyam

pratyak prazAntaM bhagavac-chabda-saMjJaM

yad vAsudevaM kavayo vadanti

 

12.6.39

 

tato 'bhUt tri-vRd oMkAro

yo 'vyakta-prabhavaH sva-rAT

yat tal liGgaM bhagavato

brahmaNaH paramAtmanaH

[Guest guest]

brahmaNo hi pratiSThAham

amRtasyAvyayasya ca

zAzvatasya ca dharmasya

sukhasyaikAntikasya ca

[Guest guest]

it was written by a number of writers, so how could you rely on that to believe Krishna is the basis for the impersonal Brahman? Why would Brahman even have to be impersonal, if there was a personal being who's the basis for that?

[Guest guest]

Can we have all that translated in English and state which source you got it from?

[Guest guest]

"I doubt even YOU have read the Vedas. If the Vedas say personal god is higher than impersonal can you prove it? Give us some quotes with references? "

 

 

Which guest are you? ur doubting i read vedas but you dont have a copy?!? what sort of monkey business r u up to

 

these upanishads are quite popular, you can acquire your 'advaita' translations easily. your local barnes n noble might even have them

[Guest guest]

mayA tatam idaM sarvaM

jagad avyakta-mUrtinA

mat-sthAni sarva-bhUtAni

na cAhaM teSv avasthitaH