The vedic path offers......

[leyh]

Dear Shvu:

 

Isn't it true that Krsna was worshipped before the term "Hindu" was concoted? So what would be the objective description of Krsna before that time?

 

To understand Krsna with the aid of mundane dictionaries is like trying to understand Christianity with the help of Marxist literatures. Different platform.

 

And where did I say there is no such thing as "Hindu Dharma"? I quoted Srila Prabhupada as saying that Krsna Conciousness is not Hindu Dharma.

[shvu]

 

I would appreciate it if you explained what you understand by hindu dharma.

 

According to joy, Prabhupada's intent in isolating his group from Hinduism was to rise above sectarianism. By this logic, is it also accurate to say Prabhupada was not a Vaishnava -- for the term was concocted much later and also has sectarian overtones?

Thanks

 

[leyh]

My understanding of Hindu Dharma is that it is another name for Vedic civilization, but since "Hindu" is a term manufactured by Muslims in reference to the Sindhu river, it is an imprecise term. It is rather like describing Christians as "Jordanians" because Jesus preached in the vicinity of the River Jordan.

 

Maybe the understanding of "Vaisnava" has sectarian overtones for some people, but certainly not for Prabhupada. Didn't he say that Jesus Christ is a Vaisnava? I don't think Jesus ever applied tilak or had a sikha.

 

Srila Prabhupada: In our society, there are many Mexicans, Canadians, Indians, Jews, and Muslims, but they no longer consider themselves Muslims, Christians, Jews, or whatever. They are all servants of Krsna. That is Brahman realization.

Mr. O'Grady: That's giving it a name also.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, a name must be there. But although, for example, your name is different from that of another Irishman, you nonetheless all feel that you are Irish. One's name may be different, but that doesn't matter. The quality should be one. That is required. When we acquire Krsna's quality, then, despite different names, there will be peace. That is called so 'ham. The names of different people in a nation may be different, but all the people feel the same nationality. ("An Awareness of What Is Best And Most Beautiful" From Chapter 7 of Science of Self Realization by His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

 

So a name must be there, but if the name is used in a way that transcends materialistic boundaries and sectarianism, then it is all right.

[shvu]

 

 

My understanding of Hindu Dharma is that it is another name for Vedic civilization, but since "Hindu" is a term manufactured by Muslims in reference to the Sindhu river, it is an imprecise term. It is rather like describing Christians as "Jordanians" because Jesus preached in the vicinity of the River Jordan.

 

 

Thanks.

 

The meaning of the term Hindu has always been unequivocal. Originally during it's inception, it meant the people residing east of the Sindhu and now it's meaning has changed and has become more specific to mean those who follow the indigeneous religion of India. Today, the term is known to billions of people in the world, has entered dictionaries and is used by both by academia and traditional, religious people of India. Unlike this, there has been no link made between the terms christian and jordanian and there fore the analogy is unwarranted. The point is, there is nothing imprecise about the term Hindu, with it's meaning being perfectly univocal.

 

 

Maybe the understanding of "Vaisnava" has sectarian overtones for some people, but certainly not for Prabhupada.Didn't he say that Jesus Christ is a Vaisnava? I don't think Jesus ever applied tilak or had a sikha.

 

 

 

Non-sequitur. What is the basis on which some terms are sectarian, while others are not?

 

Someone can just as easily say Jesus was a Shaivite, the reason being, he never worshipped specific Hindu Gods. Nonetheless, you will agree that Prabhupada would have strong objections against a Shaivite who claims supreme status for Shiva and secondary status for Vishnu/Krishna. Irrespective of how great a devotee this Shaivite may be, one simply cannot see Prabhupada referring to such a Shaiva as a Vaishnava. That is Vaishnava vs Shaiva, sectarianism, so commonly found in India and that is what I am alluding to. If not for these differences in India, there would have been no reason to use the label Vaishnava.

 

Anyway, we are digressing from the main point. The point is, objectively speaking, Krishna is a hindu God as has been universally recognized. The ontological position can be entirely different and is not a touchstone to reject objectivity. The term Hindu encompasses just about anything that has it's roots in Vedic/Puraanic literature and as far as I am aware, I don't see iskcon doing anything subversive, that makes it independent of Hinduism. Therefore, while iskcon will claim to be autonomous, the rest of the world will continue to view it's philosophy and culture as yet another branch of Hinduism.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

The word 'Hindu' originally referred to the people residing near the Sindhu river. However, the meaning of the word 'Hindu' has changed in the recent times. Even though the practice of Hinduism has changed over the recent times, GOD is the same always. Prabhupada indeed respected all the Saivites who worshipped Shiva as a devotee of Vishnu.

 

I do not object calling/worshipping Krishna as a Hindu God. The main problem I feel that considering vedic literature and scriptures as only Hindu dharma might lead to the following problems:

 

* Identification of the vedic culture as only 'Hinduism'

 

* It does not broaden the spiritual thinking and the concept of universal brotherhood. In India, even these days, there are many people who are against Hinduism, they plan to bomb temples thinking that Hindus worship only idols. People are building walls between the religions thereby promoting anger and hatred. The real purpose of any religion is to broaden the thinking capability, clear understanding of who we are and to promote universal brotherhood. The vedic culture alone has the capability to

help us clearly understand who we are and what is religion.

 

* The real vedic knowledge which is currently called as 'Hinduism' should be distributed to one and all. In order to distribute this knowledge to one and all, it is better to remove any sectarian tags attached to it, so that anyone can freely practice it without any harm.

 

Even thouth the Iskcon Samsthapaka-acharya (Founder-acharya) himself has clearly mentioned that they are preaching vedic culture, people in general view Iskcon only other branch of Hinduism, because they believe Krishna or Shiva or Rama is a Hindu God (from ages).

 

Rama, Krishna or Shiva does not change, even if so-called big-big universities, dictionaries accept them as a Hindu God.

 

Finally, I would like to request any specific scriptures or any particular quotes that clearly indicate that the vedic culture is only 'Hinduism' and nothing greater than that.

 

Cheers

[leyh]

Dear Shvu:

 

If you wish to take your information about Krsna from mundane academic sources like "big-big universities" or the dictionaries, etc. By all means do so. I will take my information about Krsna from His representatives.

[anadi]

Leyh, very nice, I like you.

 

 

Any material designations cannot be applied to

the spiritual vastus.

Is the hindu term a material or a spiritual designation?

 

If hindu would be a spiritual designation, than

it would have been found in the vedic literature

in conection with the spiritual objects,

which is not the case.

 

Or, the hindu term would have been used by the realized souls in describing the spiritual reality which applies

also to the Highest Personality of Godhead Krsna.

 

I liked it so much when you said

Krsna is not a hindu God, Krsna is God.

As Srila BV Svami Prabhupada used to say Krsna is

the Highest Personality of Godhead.

 

Yet we still try to describe the spiritual reality through

material designation and we use our material logic.

 

[paul108]

Shvu said, "The point is, objectively speaking, Krishna is a hindu God as has been universally recognized."

 

Materially conditioned people do not have an objective viewpoint, and their opinions have no more effect on the position of God than an ant's. The only objective viewpoint is Krishna's. People can relate to Krishna any way they like, and the only difference it makes is whether they become fortunate or unfortunate, devotee or demon.

 

Hare Krishna

[shvu]

 

 

Finally, I would like to request any specific scriptures or any particular quotes that clearly indicate that the vedic culture is only 'Hinduism' and nothing greater than that.

 

 

There in no extant culture that can be called "Vedic". Vedic is an english term meaning "related to or of Veda" and has been much bandied around to cover anything that is archaic and Indian -- inaccurately in most cases. Culture during Vedic times comprised of performing Yajnaas, contemplating on Brahman and following rigid Varnaashrama rules. This later gave way to Puraanic times, with the birth and rise of Bhakti. Today, what we have is a hotch-potch of systems in India, which are however linked by their common roots. How many people perform Yajnaas and how many are following the Varna system? Culture keeps changing with times and the "vedic culture", if we may call it that, went out of fad ages ago. Even a cursory examination of the content of the Samhitaas, Braahmanas and Aaranyakaas will make this clear.

 

It is quite wrong to say iskcon is practising vedic culture. Iskcon does not perform Yajnas, nor does it follow Varnashrama. Instead, iskcon engages in idol worship, chanting, provides halwa for prasadam, worships a female God, etc, none of which are Vedic. Neither does iskcon engage in study of the Mantraas or Vedaanta. On the contrary, I have seen statements from iskcon sources that the Vedaas do not work in this Yuga and therefore one should not bother with them. Thus, it follows there is nothing Vedic about iskcon's culture, for most of it's practises are drawn from Puraanaas, Paancharaathraas and local traditions of Bengal. If anyone can rightfully claim to be vedic, it has to be Arya Samaj.

 

Hinduism is a very generic term that covers all systems in India which acknowledge Vedic/Puraanic Gods. Hence, what you call as Vedic is only one part of Hinduism. You will not find this label in scriptures -- for reasons already mentioned. A standard dictionary is where one would want to look up the term. Being in contact with many Indians who visit iskcon temples (in the US as well as in India), I must say that none of them are aware that iskcon alienates itself from hinduism. As far as they are concerned, it is a Krishna temple which ipso facto, makes it a Hindu temple. Given that, there exist numerous,divergent ramifications in Hinduism, they would have a very tough time trying to understand how or why iskcon is not part of Hinduism -- if at all. IMO, this is something one will not understand, unless he has lived among Indians and seen their ways.

 

I believe, this covers all your points.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

The name Vaishnava was never invented.Vishnu/God and his devotees are eternal.

 

Joy

[anadi]

Dear Shvu

Please accept my dandavat pranama

 

Krsneti yasya giri tam manasadriyeta

Diksasti cet pranatibis ca bajantam isam

 

Yo said:

Vedic is an english term

meaning related to or of Veda and has been much bandied around to cover anything that is archaic and Indian -- inaccurately in most cases.

 

Of course from your point of view,

which seems to be the point of the western world, you are wright.

Maybe we can take another point of view.

Let us say vedic is a Sanskrit term,

because it is derived from veda

which is a Sanskrit notion that,

as we all know, means Knowledge, True Knowledge;

that is spiritual knowledge,

which is knowledge about the Absolute Truth.

So when the term vedic is attributed to a noun,

it must be understood that the noun is connected with knowledge about the Absolute Truth.

 

So vedic cannot be an english term.

 

Of course it might be that ignorant people use the term vedic quite inappropriate.

 

 

 

[theist]

If a culture in a different time and place(different planet even) has a different style of dress, different eatting styles, different looking religious rituals , but still possessed some knowledge of the conclusive truth that equaled that found in old India, would we call it a vedic culture?

 

If not, what would we call it?

 

In our words can we separate veda and vedic culture?

 

That was clumsy, but do you see where I am going with this?

[anadi]

Dear theist

Please accept my dandavat pranama and my appreciation.

Krsneti yasya giri tam manasadriyeta

Diksasti cet pranatibis ca bajantam isam

 

So when the term vedic is attributed to a noun,

it must be understood that the noun is connected with knowledge about the Absolute Truth.

 

Let us take the noun culture.

When we say vedic culture,

how is the noun culture related to the the Absolute Truth?

Not by time, not by place (planet ) nor by style of dress, diferent eatting styles, different looking religious rituals;

In other other words by no material circumstances.

The vedic culture is the one that is God centred,

posses the spiritual knowledge about jiva, bhagavan, maya and their relation

and promote that knowledge and practice.

 

On the strength of their faith in the shastra

the spiritually awake develop a taste for the practice of hari nama.

By the influence of association with the saintly people

one repeatedly practices the chanting of the holy name and

in due course of time one attains Krsna's mercy.

Karma, jnana and bhakti form but one yoga system.

This is the vedic siddhanta says Bhaktivinoda Thakura in Jaiva Dharma.

The conditioned jivas get inside the yoga system in accordance with the realizations attained in previous lives.

These spiritual realizations modelled their consciousness and

as the consciousness is the place of attachment

they are automatically attracted to a particular part of the yoga system.

 

 

[karthik_v]

 

The main reason I wrote my experience above was not to hurt anyone or to condemn any religion. There is a great need to understand the ruth. Please do not limit the capabilities of vedic knowledge by categorizing it under a single name.

 

Note: Even I used to think that I was becoming a Hindu, by associcating with sages of India. However, in the end I realized the truth by His grace.

 

 

Dear Guest,

 

I think you should register yourself and start posting regularly. That way it is easier to exchange thoughts with you. Your observations are absolutely right.

 

Just one information regarding what you quoted from Knapp. The word Hindu was actually used first by the Persians to designate anyone or anything east of the river "Sindhu", which translated to "Hindu" in Persian. In other words, this word is first being used by Persians to speak of what we call Indians today, around 600 B.C.E.

[karthik_v]

 

Mirriam Webster offers the following meanings:

 

Krishna : A deity or deified hero of later Hinduism worshiped as an incarnation of Vishnu

 

 

How does Merriam Webster define Christ or Jesus? Do they call him a mythological figure later deified? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif You see bisases are rampant all around.

[paul108]

Shvu,

Yesterday I stumbled across a thread from two years ago ( http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000137.html ), and I was surprised at what I saw. I was wondering if you still entertain these ideas such as:

"All said and done, statistically there is a 50% chance that the stories that we read are false. There may have been no Krishna at all. it does seem odd that a person of such glory and one who fought with foreigners, etc is not known to any of the other civilisations. Some poet with a great imagination may have come with this character. But that sounds terrifying to the devotees, and they will quickly turn away from such a possibility. Having invested so much of time and thought to Krishna, this seems unimaginable. So they favor the other possibility that it must all be true. A question of faith."

 

"1. We don't know for sure, if there was a Krishna.

2. We don't know for sure, if there is a God.

3. Even if 1 and 2 are correct, we still don't know for sure, if Krishna was God or not.

 

"The fact is that we don't know. Note that I am not denying anything. In such a situation some people choose to forget the whole thing and some others choose to believe all the 3 statements as true. Strictly faith."

 

 

 

I, for one, have no faith, but I got a drop of mercy. Once maybe I had a tiny speck of faith, but Krishna drenched that speck with a drop of mercy. He practicaly washed it away, as if no longer needed, "Here is mercy." You've said that no one can prove that there is a God, but actually Krishna can prove Himself quite effectively if He so chooses. I would suggest that if you haven't already done so, at least modify your views so that you are only expressing your own doubt.

 

At this moment I am listening to "Address Chandigarh 1976-10-17 Let Krishna Speak for Himself.MP3" I just heard Srila Prabhupada say in this connection, (beginning with quoting Krishna) ''In order to know Me, God, without any doubt, in completeness,...I am personally speaking to you.' That means if you want to know God, you can know Him when He explains Himself. Otherwise you cannot speculate. God is unlimited and your speculative power is limited. You cannot understand God without the mercy of God. That is the verdict of the Vedic literature.'

 

If you want to know Krishna, you have to take the risk and assume that Krishna is God. Not 50%; 100%. Otherwise you cannot begin to study Bhagavad-gita. Then we can have meaningful talk.

 

Hare Krishna

Paul

[Guest guest]

Krsna is God.

[Guest guest]

Shree vakra tund maha kaya koti surya maha prabha

nir vighnam kurume deva subha karya sah sarvada

 

Why do people want to argue about petty things?

We are all individuals lost in this material darkness.

And in the process of getting out of it we are making it difficult for each other.

Followers of sanatan dharma have been labeled Hindus by foreigners and the word Hindu has become synonymous with it. Granted Hindu is not mentioned in Shastras, like it or not, it sure has become an id for the followers of Sanatan Dharma.

Hindus collectively have endured a lot in the past, they had become accustomed to taking orders from all kinds of people. Maybe it is a good thing if they learn to express themselves a bit more taking guidance from Shastra. A lot of people mistake Hindus as hotchpotch of religion, little do they know that the Sanatan Dharma caters for all kinds of people in different modes of material nature and slowly elevates them to godly nature. Fools rush in.

Lord Krishna says people follow many paths and achieve the goal that they have chosen. Make Guru and Shastra the guiding force. Sanatan Dharma is unlimited and its realization is not just one type. Follow the universal path of goodness. We all have labels of some sort, it does not matter, and we have to rise above it. Eventually it is an individual thing. Have faith, chant Harinam. Eventually Paramatma in our heart will guide us out of this material darkness.

Jai Sri Krishna.

 

[Guest guest]

Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the light.

 

Have a great day!

[Guest guest]

jesus teachs to surrender to god, many people are doing it even if you do not call them christians... the fact that you do not recognise it is the sign that you are not really following jesus, you are only using him to push foward your sectarian fanaticism, to impose yourself on others.. so pray jesus to help you to recognise, respect and take shelter in true spiritualists beyond your sectarian and egoist conceptions

[Guest guest]

When I was trying for a job in Oman, my employer told me there is a Hindu temple in Muscat.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

i hate to say this, but you are wrong.

 

there is no such thing as a 'hindu god'. God is God, no exceptions accepted. God cannot be partial to beings, and say 'only those that call themselves hindus may worship me'. He is everyone's, and everyone is His.

 

also, the word hindu is coined by the persians, i believe, and given to the residents of india some hundreds of years ago. so even that isn't in the Vedic scriptures.

 

also:

 

Bhagavada Gita As It Is; Chapter 8, Verse 16

TRANSLATION

From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again.

PURPORT

All kinds of yogis-karma, jnana, hatha, etc.-eventually have to attain devotional perfection in bhakti-yoga, or Krishna consciousness, before they can go to Krishna’s transcendental abode and never return. Those who attain the highest material planets or the planets of the demigods are again subjected to repeated birth and death. As persons on earth are elevated to higher planets, people in higher planets such as Brahmaloka, Candraloka and Indraloka fall down to earth. The practice of sacrifice called pancagni-vidya, recommended in the Katha Upanishad, enables one to achieve Brahmaloka, but if, in Brahmaloka, one does not cultivate Krishna consciousness, then he must return to earth. Those who progress in Krishna consciousness in the higher planets are gradually elevated to higher and higher planets and at the time of universal devastation are transferred to the eternal spiritual kingdom. When there is devastation of this material universe, Brahma and his devotees, who are constantly engaged in Krishna consciousness, are all transferred to the spiritual universe and to specific spiritual planets according to their desires.

 

Hare Krishna

 

http://srikrsna.0catch.com

 

---KrishnaBhakta

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

another point: no, Vedic philosophy is not another branch of hinduism.

 

that is like saying: "the tree is a branch of the apple which grew on the tree." bad logic. the term hindu has been out there for only some hundreds of years, and sanatana dharma had been out there for thousands of years, for eternity. the original will be the original. say your name is Tom. if some foreigners that don't know you start calling you Joe, will you accept that and just accept yourself as Joe and not Tom? i doubt that. the persians started to call indians hindus; that does not mean that what they followed(for thousands of years) before they were called hindus is a branch of hinduism(which is recently termed). it's like saying the son was the cause of the existence of the father.

 

why not just start calling Christians in the west of the mississippi river in america as mississipians? would they like that? (please i do not mean any offence to anyone, and if i have caused any disturbance to anyone, please forgive me).

 

Hare Krishna

 

---KrishnaBhakta

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Hare Krishna.

RE

(i hate to say this, but you are wrong.)

 

This does not surprise me; I make mistake all the time

 

 

RE

(there is no such thing as a 'hindu god'. God is God, no exceptions accepted. God cannot be partial to beings, and say 'only those that call themselves hindus may worship me'. He is everyone's, and everyone is His.)

 

Now where have said that God is only “Hindu God”?

 

At the same time you can not deny those Hindus who worship him/her since time immemorial, as theirs, it is a figure of speech. Just as you call your father as yours even though you have brothers and sisters.

 

Bg 4.11 as all surrender unto me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows my path in all respect, o Partha.

Bg 9.29 I envy no one, nor am I partial to any one. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto me in devotion is in me, and I in him.

 

Re

(also, the word hindu is coined by the persians, i believe, and given to the residents of india some hundreds of years ago. so even that isn't in the Vedic scriptures.)

 

 

No one knows for sure how the term Hindu came to be. So what, it is just a reference, Just as you used India, also the same for Bharatvarsa.

All these are only reference for the people who follow certain paths and dharma.

Hinduism is a way of life, we are all here reaping the fruits of our Karma.those who seek him will find him.

 

 

Re

(another point: no, Vedic philosophy is not another branch of hinduism.

 

that is like saying: "the tree is a branch of the apple which grew on the tree." bad logic. the term hindu has been out there for only some hundreds of years, and sanatana dharma had been out there for thousands of years, for eternity. the original will be the original.)

 

No one is saying Vedic philosophy is another branch of Hinduism, who is saying this?

 

Re

(say your name is Tom. if some foreigners that don't know you start calling you Joe, will you accept that and just accept yourself as Joe and not Tom? i doubt that. the persians started to call indians hindus; that does not mean that what they followed(for thousands of years) before they were called hindus is a branch of hinduism(which is recently termed). it's like saying the son was the cause of the existence of the father.)

 

You are assuming Persians started calling vedic followers Hindus, I have no idea how and when the term Hindu came in existent all I know that it is here, what do you suggest they do now, it does not bother me.

 

 

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

i'm very sorry, but someone else said something to the extent of "vedic philosophy is a branch of hinduism", it wasn't you.

 

i don't know if it was you, but someone said that Lord Krishna is a hindu god. that's wrong. period.

 

the point is not who started to call the followers of the vedic philosophy 'hindus', but that the original should be restored. the change to the name also brings changes to the customs, beliefs, etc. no arguing, but you can agree on that, i think.

 

Haribol.

Hare Krishna

 

---KrishnaBhakta