hare_krishna Posted July 27, 2003 Report Share Posted July 27, 2003 Is Isckon a part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma? There are a lot different kind of paths in Hinduism. Is Isckon also one of them? Not that one little word means very much, but do you have the feeling that other Hindu paths are also part of sanatana dharma? I mean other paths like Vishishta dwaita, advaita, madhwa dwaita, shankara adwaita, shudha adwaita and many other paths in Hinduism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 <<Is Isckon a part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma? >> iskcon is a vaishnav org. yes it is hindu, but prabhupada did not say it is because of deplomatic reason, and his disciples do not say it because like parrots they repeat what prabhupada said without looking into the facts of the matter. it is time HK's accept openly that they are hindus (sanatana dharmis). jai sri krishna! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 Here is an article by Prabhupada: http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/newsletters/51022/0/collapsed/5/o/1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa In reply to: Is Isckon a part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma? Santana dharma (Hindus) will always accept them they worship the same God Hindus have done since time in memorial but Iskcon only calls themselves Hindu when it suits them other times they make fun of them Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 Sanatan dharma is the proper name for Hinduism, we are not actually meant to be called Hindus. The reason we became known as Hindus ( as far as i know, i dont know the whole story) was because of a Indus river on which one side lived the sanatan dharma followers, and on the other muslims. The muslims could not say "indus" so they called us hindus on the other side. So we became known as Hindus. In Sanatan dharma we believe that we should not go against anyone believing in God in their own way, like other religions, because all religions are a path to God. Similarly in Sanatan Dharma we have many different paths to spiritualism and enlightenment. This is encouraged because of different forms of God, and so different ways are presented in Sanatan Dharma. None are wrong, they are all paths to God. ISKON is one of the may paths in our Sanatan Dharma, i think most of the sects within our sanatan dharma are the same, but slightly different in the ways of worship or the form of Narayan they worship. In answer to your first question i would say that ISCKON is a part of Sanatan Dharma, which is also referred to as Hinduism Minesh Tailor! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 <<but Iskcon only calls themselves Hindu when it suits them other times they make fun of them >> and this has to change, if truth has to prevail. jai sri krishna! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Dharma is eternal but NOT hindu dharma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted July 29, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Hinduism is the best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govindaram Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada: Regarding the Hindu centers in the foreign countries, none of them are bona fide. There is a similar hodge podge center in London. Actually Hindus and non-Hindus everyone is at the present moment out of touch of the real science of spiritual knowledge. Everyone is going under some religious badge only, so it is very difficult to deal with them unless they are very much serious to understand the science of God. Everyone of the Hindu community in the Western world has got some very good feeling for me because superficially they are seeing that I am spreading Hindu religion, but factually this Krishna Consciousness movement is neither Hindu religion nor any other religion. It is the function of the soul. So even though the Indian Hindus are very much inclined in my favor, so far I have experience it is very difficult to turn them into pure devotees. The difficulty has become more acute on account of Ramakrishna Mission's preaching that any opinion about religion is alright. But our philosophy is different, we do not accept any opinion which is not advised by Krishna. So unless one is very fortunate, never mind whether he is Hindu or non-Hindu, one cannot take to the Krishna Consciousness movement and accept its bona fide principles. Haribol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted July 29, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 I also agree with Krishnas opinion, but Krishna said more than only bhagavad gita. Read hari vamsha puraana for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted July 29, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 It is the function of the soul. So even though the Indian Hindus are very much inclined in my favor, so far I have experience it is very difficult to turn them into pure devotees. He meant that it is very difficult to make parrot like people of Hindus. We would not agree with "Srila prabhupada is always right" But Srila Prabhupada is in our favor. We Hindus are very glad that people who were cow flesh eaters are worshiping Hindu God now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govindaram Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Hare Krishna Srila Prabhupada said we have to elevate our selves to the status of PURE DEVOTEE, not merely engage in temple worship and be expected to attain Prema, thats deep though, but in my experience most Hindus are content with going to temple and thats it, they have NO IDEA the goal of life is BHAKTI, the stupid heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Yes, they are stupid heads. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But me is not. /images/graemlins/cool.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted July 29, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 That was me, I was logged out. Bhakti is actually something Hindu, not something Christian or Muslim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govindaram Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Quote "Bhakti is actually something Hindu" What the hey is a Hindu /images/graemlins/confused.gif, I am meant to be one, how far has that got me, people born athesists are practising KC million times better than me, it dosen't depend on your birth, what you saying is like ohh Krishna is a Hindu, he'll get you for that Hare Krishna. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted July 29, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Western people who worship Krishna with bhakti are also Hindu. Krishna and bhakti are both Hindu. I am sorry to say his, but you are all Hindu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 i can be defined as hindu for classifying purpose, maybe in the media or so.... but i do not live between sindhu and gange river /images/graemlins/smile.gif you do not understand that this word hindu is very limiting for the spirituality coming from your land... bharata varsa, in vedas, means world i had a little holydays and i have visited a place at 6000 km from india, a very ancient temple, maybe 3000 years old, that some archeologist say that was a surya narayana temple and where they have found a shivalingam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 In reality, such concepts are like the phases of the moon... always changing /images/graemlins/smile.gif Hindus.. Muslims and christians... but do you think these concepts existed forever? No, these are modern concepts created by the society to form a certain unity for the good/bad of the public. The "Christians" came about only 2000 years ago after christ. The Muslims came about only 1400 years ago after Muhammed. And, the term Hindu came about when the Muslims attacked the people living in India. Before Vedic culture, Krishna was still there, before christians God was there and people were worshipping him and also before Muslims God was ofcourse there. So, In my view, talking about the various faiths by differentiating them as Hindus, Muslims and Christians is completely idiotic. Moreover, We can call ourselves Vedic Dharmis or Sanathan Dharmis. Because, the word Sanathan means endless and dharma means duty. We are performing an endless duty which is the adoration of the supreme. However, that would mean every one is sanathan dharmi because every one was adoring and loving the supreme (at some point in their life and some time) . So, the notions such as "I am christian", "We are all hindu" should not be entertained, because they block our goal... which is the love for the supreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Western people who worship Krishna with bhakti are also Hindu. Krishna and bhakti are both Hindu. I am sorry to say his, but you are all Hindu. Advancement of God consciousness begins with the understanding that one is not this material body. If one thinks that he is Hindu, Christian, Jew, or Muslim; then he has not truly begun the process. Furthermore, Krishna consciousness is completely nonsectarian. It is available to anyone who desires to take up the process. The process, by the way, has nothing to do with Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or Judaism (or any other "ism"), nor does it require the practitioner to have any knowledge of, qualification in, or identification with, any of these religions(or any other 'ism'). It has absolutely nothing to do with "Hindu religion" or any other "religion." Whether one professes a particular religion, or no religion at all, is of absolutely no consequence. What does matter, however, is that he/she is willing to follow Krishna's directions delineated in the Bhagavad-Gita. Krishna says clearly, "Abandon all varieties of religion, and just surrender Unto Me." Krishna consciousness is above and beyond any sort of bodily consciousness. Such bodily consciousness centers around where one happens to take birth, his ancestry, his family and societal circle, the color of one's skin, the qualifications acquired at birth, and the qualifications acquired during one's life. To state that one who is a devotee of Krishna or who takes to this process of Krishna consciousness is a "Hindu" is more than absurd. One has to assume that one who proposes such a thing is steeped in bodily consciousness. Please do not take offense when I say this, as I'm sure that you simply spoke without thinking. I'm sure that if you reflect on this topic, then you will come to a much more broad minded and sastrically based conclusion. Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.84.13): yasyatma-buddhih kunape tri-dhatuke sva-dhih kalatradisu bhauma ijya-dhih yat-tirtha-buddhih salile na karhicij janesv abhijnesu sa eva go-kharah "A human being who identifies this body made of three elements with his self, who considers the by-products of the body to be his kinsmen, who considers the land of birth as worshipable, and who goes to the place of pilgrimage simply to take a bath rather than meet men of transcendental knowledge there, is to be considered as an ass or a cow." Once again, please do not take offense that I have spoken harsh words. I apologize, but it is my duty. Your humble servant, Forrest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishna_s Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 What is the definition of Hindu/Hinduism? Doesn't this entire discussion require a clear and undisputable definition before it can proceed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 hinduism is a religion more or less originated by the original sanatana dharma... some deviation, like the caste concept or the nationalism were mostly a reaction to the muslim and english domination it is very subtle but it is possible to say that hinduism is more or less tipical indian... sanatana dharma is universal, as demonstrated by srila prabhupada and gaudya vaishnavas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. The word Hindu is coined by outsiders, for those who were and are followers of Sanatan Dharma. It is as relevant today as it was at the time of creation. Maa Ganga is also referred to as Ganges taking a dip in it will produce the same result. One can argue I am having a dip in Jhanvi, it does not matter. What is important is we take a dip Just as Bombay is changed to Mumbai does that mean its inhabitants have changed? If we call our self Vedic, Sanatanis, the contents will still be the same One does not artificially belong to transcendental platform by belonging to any one group. Vedic Dharma has never been specific to any one Darshan Lord Krishna speaks of various paths in Bhagvat Gita Shastras talk about the same supreme Lord in varieties of ways and different ways of approaching him/her Krishna is our father and as such his sons have right to call him theirs. He is not exclusive of any one but( ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham) Yes Krishna is above all material designation and we are all part of his creation and we are all trying to reach him one way or other if Iskcon has nothing to do with Hindu then that is their prerogative.. Some one might think that prior to Iskcon there were no Krishna followers. Hindus and Iskcon is two separate ''ID''for the same Sanatan Dharma, by denying either it makes no sense.Iskcon is happy call them Hindu when it suits them. Hinduism is not original, pure Sanatan Dharma. Some argue because not all Hindu's worship Krishna as God. Some worship Lord Siva Some worship Devi/Devtas] Here lies the root of their problem (Hinduism)Sanatan Dharma is an umbrella of different realisation of different aspect of the Supreme Lord and one of them is pure Krishna Bhakti Krishna says only few know me in truth In ch.7 Bhagvat Gita he says people worship Devi/Devtas and they go to them, it is their choice. In BG ch.9 some people worship me as one some in duality and others in many different way.Ch 17 people in mode of goodness worship Devtas. Worship of LORD SIVA, DEVI MAA and others is nothing NEW. In Vedic time all this worship was going on but according to some it is not Sanatan Dharma. Still it is your choice. Everyone has a right to worship Lord Shree Krishna if we are qualified he makes it possible, nothing happens by accident, he is not partial to anyone but those who worship him he rewards them accordingly The word HINDU is synonym, an id for outsiders for the followers of Sanatan Dharma. It is a way of life and if someone calls me Hindu I am not confused about it others find it difficult to relate for various reasons, I should not be puffed up about it but I am not ready to let go the rich heritage I have inherited... Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabhas nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa Sorry that was me i forgot my respect to Shree Ganesh Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishna_s Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 I think you should be more specific -- are you saying Hinduism is something that developed from Sanaatana-dharma, or that it is the same as Sanaatana-dharma? How do you define Sanaatana-dharma? When I hear "Sanaatana-dharma," I think of the eternal spiritual culture that has its origins in, and is based on, the Vedas and their supplements, the Puraanas and Itihaasas. This may not be an exhaustive definition, but implicit within it is that one can use the Vedas/Puraanas/Itihaasas to determine what falls within and what does not fall within the scope of "Sanaatana-dharma." Can such a yardstick be applied to Hinduism? It's an important question to ask, because many people claim to be Hindus who believe in vastly different and often contradictory (and sometimes internally contradictory) things. Followers of Rajneesh insist that he is a Hindu. Chinamayananda/Vivekananda/Sai Baba followers say they are Hindus. All VHP Hindus say that Vaishnavas are Hindus, except when Vaishnavas start quoting shaastra to establish truth, at which time VHP types condemn them as being un-Hindu. So it's not exactly a trivial question. yours, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 I think of the natural function of the soul in relation to the Supreme Soul. 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.