Hindu Dharma?

[atanu]

I often come across people, active in internet, who while opposing all tenets and practices of Hindu Dharma however, act as if they are integral part of Hindu Dharma, by employing a subtle confusion. This thread is to discuss this issue.

Reportedly, the ‘Hindu’ term was first used by Persians to denote the people living in the sub-continental peninsula, bordered by the river Sindhu (whose distortion gave rise to the term ‘Hindu’). Today, it is a cultural-Legal term, and includes most Indians, except some, as explained in the blog below.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/wiah/ch3.htm

India's Constitution does not give a definition of the term Hindu, but it does define to whom the Hindu Law applies. It has to do this because in spite of its pretence to secularism, the Indian Constitution allows Muslims, Christians and Parsis a separate Personal Law. In a way, this separate treatment of different communities merely continues the communal autonomy of castes and sects accepted in pre-modern Hindu states, but it exposes the credibility deficit of Indian secularism. At any rate, the situation is that Personal Law is divided on the basis of religion, and that one of the legal subsystems is called Hindu Law.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 goes in greater detail to define this legal Hindu, by stipulating in Section 2 that the Act applies:
(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.

On the other hand, Hindu Dharma (a term which undoubtedly has come in common use) actually refers to Sanatana Dharma or Vaidika Dharma. It is not merely a cultural or a legal usage.

http://veda.wikidot.com/hinduism

This is the standard understanding of what Hindu Dharma is. Brahman, Ishwara, Atman, Karma, Purusartha, Moksha, Shruti etc. are standard terms derived from Vedas and subsequent scriptures.
.....

So, when we refer to a dharma called Hinduism are we referring to dharma called Sanatana Dharma, which has Vedas as the root or not?

Can Lokayata or Charvaka darsana-s, which deny Ishwara, Brahman, consciousness beyond body, Karma, re-incarnation, testimony of Vedas as proof, be counted as Vaidika or Sanatana Dharma?

 

[crossfire]

Interestingly, the Pali equivalent of Sanatana Dharma is used in the Dhammapada: at Dhammapada 1:5

5. Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ 5
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano.
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
​

 

[atanu]

Interestingly, the Pali equivalent of Sanatana Dharma is used in the Dhammapada: at Dhammapada 1:5

5. Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ 5
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano.
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
​

Thank you. That goes well with dharma tradition in whole. However, 'Sanatana' means without a beginning. Another word, which is commonly used in scripture is 'anaditmat'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

On the other hand, Hindu Dharma (a term which undoubtedly has come in common use) actually refers to Sanatana Dharma or Vaidika Dharma. It is not merely a cultural or a legal usage.

There is no 'Vaidika dharma'. 'Sanatan' is a modern usage. It just means Hindu belief that 'dharma', 'what things should be done' does not change with time (like respecting social traditions except normal change due to time; respecting family and elders; being kind to all, humans and other life; not to be a trouble for other people's peaceful life; etc.). The Vedic theology merged into the indigenous beliefs and gave rise to Hinduism. The deities that normally Hindus worship are all non-Vedic except for Vishnu and Saraswati. They find no mention in RigVeda. Of the Vedic deities many have been nearly forgotten except in yajna invocations - Pusha, Ashwinis, Soma, etc. Indra, Agni, Surya have been reduced to minor status. In a merger, there is some gain and some loss, and that is what happened with Aryans in India. So what you have written is your personal view which does not match with reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Add: Vishnu was the most gainer. Indra was the most looser. Saraswati which was the celestial and terrestrial river took on the characteristics of Vac and became the Goddess of learning.

 

[atanu]

I hold that Hindu Dharma is essentially the Sanatana Dharma or Vaidika Dharma, having the Vedas as the core scripture.

Throughout my existence in this forum since 2010, I have found some posters to continually attack or oppose the above and other commonly held concepts of Hinduism as not common, even in the Dir. I agree that everyone is entitled to a view but it is an irritation to continually hear concepts that are alien to Hindu Dharma, in the Dir. On further investigations, I have often found their links, in some form or other, to Lokyata philosophy, although in the forum they claim to be advaitins.

What connection or what commonality Hindu dharma has with Lokyata?

I guessed that the Hinduism Dir in this forum must've been set up on some basic understanding and so I explored and found this foundational post that defines Hinduism in the context of this forum.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/hinduism-overview.485/

I note two points from above post.

1.

Hinduism rests on the spiritual bedrock of the Vedas, hence Veda Dharma, and their mystic issue, the Upanishads, as well as the teachings of many great Hindu gurus through the ages. Many streams of thought flow from the six Vedic/Hindu schools, Bhakti sects and Tantra Agamic schools into the one ocean of Hinduism, the first of the Dharma religions.

सनातन धर्म (Sanātana Dharma, Sanskrit): "The Eternal Way "
Sanātana Dharma, the Perennial Philosophy/Harmony/Faith, is the one name that has represented Hinduism for many thousands of years. It speaks to the idea that certain spiritual principles hold eternally true, transcending man-made constructs, representing a pure science of consciousness.

2.

Legal Definition of Hinduism According to the Supreme Court of India
In a 1966 ruling, the Supreme Court of India defined the Hindu faith as follows for legal purposes:

Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy.
Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent's point of view based on the realization that truth is many-sided.
Acceptance of great world rhythm-vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession-by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.
Acceptance by all systems of Hindu philosophy of the belief in rebirth and pre-existence.
Recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are many.
Realization of the truth that numbers of Gods to be worshiped may be large, yet there being Hindus who do not believe in the worshiping of idols.
Unlike other religions, or religious creeds, Hindu religion's not being tied down to any definite set of philosophic concepts, as such.

Thanks.

 

[atanu]

Some others pile up lie after lie that the deities that Hindus worship today have nothing to do with the Vedic deities. I will not go into great detail as that is not required. Hindu deities (and for that matter the whole universe) are cakes made of Consciousness. So, from sensual point of view there is no graspable deity -- no thing at all but the deliciousness is the key.

I can fill many pages showing that all common deities of today are of Vedic origin. But I suppose a single reference to an Upanishadic verse should suffice, since Brahman-Ishwara is all forms too. Who is Rudra is Shiva that we worship to and meditate upon. They are not two.

We begin with the shvetAshvatara 3.5:

yA te rudra shivA tanUraghorApApakAshinI |
tayA nastanuvA shantamayA girishantAbhichAkashIhi ||
( shrI rudram: anuvAka 1 , rik 3; shvetAshvatara Up.: 3.5 )

yA - that
te - Your
rudra - O Rudra
shivA - auspicious
tanUH - form
aghorA - not terrifying
apApakAshinI - that which destroys sins by mere remembrance
tayA - by that
naH - us
tanuvA - by the form
shantamayA - by the most joyous
girishanta - O Dweller of the (KailAsa) mountain who confer joy
abhichAkashIhi - look (at us so that we may be united with the
highest good)

O Rudra! O Girishanta (who dwell on the Kailaasa mountain and confer happiness)! By that form of Yours which is not terrifying, which destroys sin by its mere remembrance, and which is all blissful, please behold us and unite us with the highest good!

shA.nkarabhAShyam.h (Commentary of Shankara)

yA te rudreti | he rudra tava yA shivA tanUraghorA | uktaM cha
tasyaite tanuvau ghorA .anyA shivA .anyeti | athavA shivA .avidyA-
tatkAryavinirmuktA sachchidAnandAdvayabrahmarUpA na tu ghorA
shashibiMbamivA .ahlAdinI | apApakAshinI smR^itimAtrAghanAshinI
puNyAbhivyaktakarI | tayA .atmanA no .asmAn.h shantamayA sukhatamayA
purNAnandarUpayA he girishanta girau sthitvA shaM sukhaM tanotIti |
abhichAkashIhi nirIkshasva shreyasA niyojasvetyarthaH ||

Translation of Shankara's commentary:

O Rudra! (By that) form of Yours which is aghorA, ie. not that which is terrifying. It is said (in the BrAhmaNa) "(Rudra is verily this sacrificial fire, agni.) That Rudra has two forms; one is terrifying and the other is shivA, auspicious (or gentle)." Or, the word shivA means that which is free from ignorance (avidyA) and its effects, which is of the nature of the nondual Brahman that is Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss, which is not terrifying but which causes joy like the form of the moon. apApakAshinI means that which destroys sins by merely being remembered and which reveals merit (puNya). Through that form which is most delightful and of the nature of infinite bliss, O Girishanta, who reside on the (KailAsa) mountain and confer happiness, behold us (look at us) so that (by this glance) we may be united with the highest good (Brahman).

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Legal Definition of Hinduism According to the Supreme Court of India"

I have already mentioned that the Supreme Court was wrong to select an acharya of Swaminarayans, who themselves, are not Hindus, to opine on Hinduism. Why did they select that person instead of the acharyas of other Hindu denominations. Personally, I think it was at Indira Gandhi's behest. Congress always has delighted in creating fissures among Hindus. A point of law can always be challenged. I find the statement that 'a religion must have a book' very much Abrahamic. Hinduism can never be condensed in a book.

"Hindu deities (and for that matter the whole universe) are cakes made of Consciousness"

That is your opinion. That does not become the opinion of all or the majority of Hindus. Let them be. If they believe that the deities exist, who are you to fault them? Even your 'consciousness' belief is just a figment of your imagination and unscientific.

Wikipedia errs in equating Hinduism with Vedicism. Are not the villagers of Malana in Himachal Pradesh who worship Jamlu Devata, Hindu? Are not the Dravidas who worship Iravan, Ayyappa or Yellamma, Hindu?

Rudra and Shiva:

Here the word Shiva is used in the sense of 'auspicious' as you have yourself given in the word meanings. It does not refer to the indigenous God, Mahadeva. Of course, the two later merged and became one, just like Lord Vishnu merged with the eight regional Gods including Rama and Krishna.

Perhaps Parashurama (Bhrigu Kaccha - Lord Parashurama was born in the line of Sage Bhrigu, that is why he is also known as 'Bhargava'), Rama and Krishna belonged to North India; while the other five to South India, since their worship has been historically stronger in South India. But that is only my guess, I could easily be wrong here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"The topical thrust of the Lokmanya’s (BG Tilak) often contested but vibrantly patriotic legacy – a thrust that partisan passions tend to obfuscate – is clear: India is singular because India is plural."

"Tilak in our times" - Dileep Padgaonkar (noted columnist)
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...evance-of-the-causes-the-lokmanya-championed/

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Atanu ji

Thank you for opening this much needed post , ...

I often come across people, active in internet, who while opposing all tenets and practices of Hindu Dharma however, act as if they are integral part of Hindu Dharma, by employing a subtle confusion. This thread is to discuss this issue.

is this not indicative of the strength of Maya in this Kaliyuga ?
prehaps at times we fear that there is a dilliberate act to oppose Hundu Dharma as you say ''by employing a subtle confusion.'' ....but is this subtle confusion not a symptom of Kaliyuga ? ....

Reportedly, the ‘Hindu’ term was first used by Persians to denote the people living in the sub-continental peninsula, bordered by the river Sindhu (whose distortion gave rise to the term ‘Hindu’). Today, it is a cultural-Legal term, and includes most Indians, except some, as explained in the blog below.

I can only give my Guru ji's illumination on this as it was a subject which concerned him greatly , ....he would use only Bharat , Bharatia Dharma and most commonly Sanatana Dharma and saw titles such as India , Hindustan and Hindu as being more recent cultural and secular titles , this is not an attack on those accustomed to these deliniatins , but merely recognises them as recent demarkations or deliniations of land , culture and religious beleifs , .....

personaly I find the use of 'Hindu Dharma' to be a little confusing , if not Ambigious ? as it will naturaly be open to inturpretation from both the more secular Hindu whos understanding will be relative to his personal and nationalistic sence of responcibility , and the Jnani's and Bhakti's whos understanding of Dharma is less secular and more devotonal , ...

Thus I prefer Sanatana Dharma , ....

On the other hand, Hindu Dharma (a term which undoubtedly has come in common use) actually refers to Sanatana Dharma or Vaidika Dharma. It is not merely a cultural or a legal usage.

if I may be permitted to appologise before I upset any thay hold firmly and proudly to the title Hindu , .....
I think here you are perfectly correct Sanatana Dharma , ...which My Guru ji translated variously but most commonly as Eternal Religious Pricipals has extremely specific conoteations, ....that we are to uphold religious practices , thus promoting and preserving Truth and Rightiousness , ...but as Dharma is also Law this Truth ; Veda becomes a very important principle so Vaidika Dharma would be equaly appropriate .

So, when we refer to a dharma called Hinduism are we referring to dharma called Sanatana Dharma, which has Vedas as the root or not?

this I may save for latter as I am running out of time this morning , ...but esentialy yes , ...Veda being truth is at the root of the principles of Sanatana Dharma , in the same way that Veda is at the root of the Vedas of this age , ...but both are one , ....

Can Lokayata or Charvaka darsana-s, which deny Ishwara, Brahman, consciousness beyond body, Karma, re-incarnation, testimony of Vedas as proof, be counted as Vaidika or Sanatana Dharma?

my initial response is No , ....prehaps I will return also to this question later , ....as I feel that there is a subtle hidden twist which is possibly worth consideration ?

thank you Atanu Ji for raising this question , ...

 

[atanu]

Namaskaram Atanu ji

is this not indicative of the strength of Maya in this Kaliyuga ?
prehaps at times we fear that there is a dilliberate act to oppose Hundu Dharma as you say ''by employing a subtle confusion.'' ....but is this subtle confusion not a symptom of Kaliyuga ? ....

Yes.

I can only give my Guru ji's illumination on this as it was a subject which concerned him greatly , ....he would use only Bharat , Bharatia Dharma and most commonly Sanatana Dharma and saw titles such as India , Hindustan and Hindu as being more recent cultural and secular titles , this is not an attack on those accustomed to these deliniatins , but merely recognises them as recent demarkations or deliniations of land , culture and religious beleifs , .....

personaly I find the use of 'Hindu Dharma' to be a little confusing , if not Ambigious ? as it will naturaly be open to inturpretation from both the more secular Hindu whos understanding will be relative to his personal and nationalistic sence of responcibility , and the Jnani's and Bhakti's whos understanding of Dharma is less secular and more devotonal , ...

Thus I prefer Sanatana Dharma , ....

Yes. To me, Hindu Dharma is Sanatana Dharma and Vaidika Dharma, a fact Supreme Court recognises. As Hindu dharma has come to represent the Vaidika dharma, I do not have issue in using it, as long as there is no deliberate attempt at misleading others.

As per legal provisions of India, Hindu laws include all Indians who are not Muslims, Parsis, or Christians. Hindu law covers Buddhists, Jains, Hindus of all varieties, all Indians and others those who consider themselves Hindus, including the atheists.

But, my point is that Hindu Dharma, which is based on Vedas is not same as Hindu laws of today.

my initial response is No , ....prehaps I will return also to this question later , ....as I feel that there is a subtle hidden twist which is possibly worth consideration ?

thank you Atanu Ji for raising this question , ...

Yeah. When even the very basis of this Hinduism Dir is:

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/hinduism-overview.485/
Hinduism rests on the spiritual bedrock of the Vedas, hence Veda Dharma, and their mystic issue, the Upanishads, as well as the teachings of many great Hindu gurus through the ages. Many streams of thought flow from the six Vedic/Hindu schools, Bhakti sects and Tantra Agamic schools into the one ocean of Hinduism, the first of the Dharma religions.

सनातन धर्म (Sanātana Dharma, Sanskrit): "The Eternal Way "

Best wishes. Thanks. Regards.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Atanu ji

my appologies for not replying sooner , .....I was going to return to two questions, ....

Atanu Said , ....
..... So, when we refer to a dharma called Hinduism are we referring to dharma called Sanatana Dharma, which has Vedas as the root or not?

yes as in the root of Hindu Dharma must be Sanatana or Vaidika Dharma , .....but no in that Hindu Dharma is specific to the vaguries of time place and Circumstance and has taken other cultural elements into consideration ,

But, my point is that Hindu Dharma, which is based on Vedas is not same as Hindu laws of today.

of course yes , here I agree completly , Hindu Dharma to me has an element of ambiguity which Sanatana or Vaidika Dharma does not , ...if a government must pass a law defining the term Hindu and defining a Hindus responcibility then this indicates that Vaidika or Sanatana Dharma has become meaningless or lost to some , ...

the second question was that of Lokayata and Charvaka darshana's , ....

Can Lokayata or Charvaka darsana-s, which deny Ishwara, Brahman, consciousness beyond body, Karma, re-incarnation, testimony of Vedas as proof, be counted as Vaidika or Sanatana Dharma?

I had said No , ....for the reason that both schools depart from the Vaidika version , ....If we regard Veda as Truth there can be no later oppinion about truth or actuality as it is unchanging , thus it is Sanatana , .....
for Lokayata and Charvaka darshana's wish to deny the principle of ''Ishwar , Brahman or consciousness beyond body'' , then they are moving beyond or away from the Vaidika version , ..as there can be no opinion about the truth and as it is unchanging all that can change is our receptability to it , ....

Yeah. When even the very basis of this Hinduism Dir is:

personaly I fear that the basis of this Hinduism Dir whilst understandable is also Questionalble , ....

as this Hinduism DIR is ...''Discuss Individual Religion'' , ...not Discuss individual Culture, .... Hindu laws of inclusivity seem only partialy relevant , ....

although well intentioned this act of inclusivity for all who identify culturaly as Hindu (in that they belong to the Hindu nation) , ..is destined for for this reason to cause strife as it gives an identity to opposing traditions which differ greatly from Sanatana or Vaidika Dharma , ....if we are then to use the term Hindu Dharma surely we must know it to be the Svadharma of the nation , in just the same way that we must not allow our own individual Dharmas to become confuesd or detract from Sanatana Dharma , ....

if there is any missunderstanding then we have lost sight of the eternal nature of Truth , ......

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/hinduism-overview.485/

Hinduism rests on the spiritual bedrock of the Vedas, hence Veda Dharma, and their mystic issue, the Upanishads, as well as the teachings of many great Hindu gurus through the ages. Many streams of thought flow from the six Vedic/Hindu schools, Bhakti sects and Tantra Agamic schools into the one ocean of Hinduism, the first of the Dharma religions.

सनातन धर्म (Sanātana Dharma, Sanskrit): "The Eternal Way "

If we are to visit this question as I have done previously , it brings much into Question that the average Hindu finds extremely uncomfortable , ....here it is accknowledged that ''Hinduism rests on the spiritual bedrock of the Vedas''...

but little is it acknowledged that the Vedas as we know them are a set of instructions and revealations of divine origin who them selves spring forth from the Veda ...Truth , the great body of knowledge that is without origin as it is timeless and self existing , ....

''Many streams of thought flow from the six Vedic/Hindu schools, Bhakti sects and Tantra Agamic schools into the one ocean of Hinduism, the first of the Dharma religions. ''

in some respects this is true and in other resects it is an attempt at reconciliation or harmonisation between Margs or Darshana's

but surely due to the eternal nature of Vaidic culture to call Hinduism the first of the Dharmic religions is also questionable ? ...but it s a very hard subject to broach from our position as we are generaly focusing on what Hinduism has become and what it encompases today , so I am not wishing to criticise the OP's original summing up .

however this raises one point , ..the inclusion or not of Lokayata and Charvaka darshana's and any other Nastika school of thought , ...this problem sems also to divide the Buddhist world in reverse in that some seem to resent the inclusion of Astika beleif and any suggestion of a relationship between a divine and eternal element and the Buddha of this age , .....thus Buddhist links to Sanatana Dharma have ben severed , ...but where Hinduism is concerned it is the other way around the Astika Schools resent the inclusion of the Nastika in fear that it will distance colective hinduism from its Astica foundations , ..... .

please Atanu ji , if you could elaborate on your concerns I would be both interested and most greatfull .

Jai Jai , regards also ,
Dhanyavad , ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes. To me, Hindu Dharma is Sanatana Dharma and Vaidika Dharma, a fact Supreme Court recognises.

As per legal provisions of India, Hindu laws include all Indians who are not Muslims, Parsis, or Christians. Hindu law covers Buddhists, Jains, Hindus of all varieties, all Indians and others those who consider themselves Hindus, including the atheists.

But, my point is that Hindu Dharma, which is based on Vedas is not same as Hindu laws of today.

Legal positions decided during the anti-Hindu Congress rule and Supreme Court comments which overlook history and practice of Hinduism are not indicators of what Hinduism is. Though Buddhists and Jains are covered under Hindu law but there is no doubt about their being separate religions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. ".. but no in that Hindu Dharma is specific to the vaguries of time place and Circumstance and has taken other cultural elements into consideration,"
2. ".. Hindu Dharma to me has an element of ambiguity which Sanatana or Vaidika Dharma does not, .."
3. ".. deny the principle of ''Ishwar , Brahman or consciousness beyond body'', then they are moving beyond or away from the Vaidika version, .."
4. ".. it brings much into Question that the average Hindu finds extremely uncomfortable, .."
5. ".. Vedas as we know them are a set of instructions and revelations of divine origin who them selves spring forth from the Veda .."
6. ''Many streams of thought flow from the six Vedic/Hindu schools, Bhakti sects and Tantra Agamic schools into the one ocean of Hinduism, the first of the Dharma religions. ''
7. ".. but surely due to the eternal nature of Vaidic culture to call Hinduism the first of the Dharmic religions is also questionable ? .. but it s a very hard subject to broach from our position as we are generally focusing on what Hinduism has become and what it encompases today, so I am not wishing to criticize the OP's original summing up .."
8.".. the inclusion or not of Lokayata and Charvaka darshana's and any other Nastika school of thought, .."

Ratiben, in your above post, you are not clear about these eight point. It is a very wrong Arya Samaji thought, it is poison to Hinduism. It has created divisions in Hinduism. Visiting one Arya Samaj function, I was pained to hear the way they abuse Hinduism. Now let me take the eight points.

1. Yeah, for villagers in Rajasthan, Pabuji or Ramdeo ji are the Gods and not Vishnu, or Shiva. Such views exists in all parts of India. The generations of these villagers have not even heard the name of Vedas.
2. All the confusion arises if one takes Vedas as the base. If one does not insist on that there is no problem at all. It is very simple, Hinduism is what Hindus do and it differs from one place to another, one community to another, one sect to another and even from one person to another. Why should that be a problem?
3. What would you say about Nasadiya Sukta. It flatly denies existence of God. There is one more sukta like that, if you want I can search for it.
4. Yeah, many Hindus do not take Vedas as their prime book. So what do we do about them. Deny that they are Hindus?
5. Seeing or hearing has many interpretations. I see rise in industrialization and that of carbon-di-oxide in Earth's atmosphere and consequent reduction in ice cover. That is not 'revelation', that is the knowledge/intelligence. You are not giving credit to the Rishis. Vedas are basically fervent prayers of the Aryans to their Gods and Goddesses for material benefits and protection. Even BhagawadGita accepts that.

"Yām imāḿ puṣpitāḿ vācaḿ, pravadanty avipaścitaḥ; veda-vāda-ratāḥ pārtha, nānyad astīti vādinaḥ.
kāmātmānaḥ svarga-parā, janma-karma-phala-pradām; kriyā-viśeṣa-bahulāḿ, bhogaiśvarya-gatiḿ prati." BG 2.42-43

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.
(Do not blame me. I have used Prabhupada's translation)

"Trai-guṇya-viṣayā vedā, nistrai-guṇyo bhavārjuna; nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho, niryoga-kṣema ātmavān." BG 2.45

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

Even the name of hymns - Richas - clearly indicates that. Only a person who has not read Vedas can say otherwise. Only at a few places they touch other secular matters like the state of their society, History, Geography.
6. The six darshanas are not Vedic. Samkhya, Vaisesika and Poorva Mimamsa deny Ishwara. 'Sabda' should not be equated to Vedas. They are two different things. Samkhya and Vaisesika accept 'Sabda', whether in Vedas or otherwise if the experience does not go against them, even 'Nyaya' for that matter. No statement automatically becomes truth even if it is in the Vedas. Even what is written in a science book is 'Sabda' if it qualifies by evidence.

"The reliability of the source is important, and legitimate knowledge can only come from the Sabda of reliable sources. The disagreement between the schools of Hinduism has been on how to establish reliability." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana#Hinduism (Sabda).
7. Vedic culture also is a part of Hinduism because the Aryans merged into Hinduism, but it is wrong to take Vedas as the whole of Hinduism. That way more than 50% of Hinduism is left out.
8. Who is a nastika? One who denies Ishwara or one who denies Vedas or one who denies Brahman? I am sure definitions will differ. And then what does one mean by denial? I accept Vedas and SrimadBhagawadGita as the most valuable books of Hindus but deny their divine origin.

No one should try to fetter Hinduism. Fettered, it will no more be Hinduism.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Aupmanyav ji

Ratiben, in your above post, you are not clear about these eight point. It is a very wrong Arya Samaji thought, it is poison to Hinduism. It has created divisions in Hinduism. Visiting one Arya Samaj function, I was pained to hear the way they abuse Hinduism. Now let me take the eight points.

excuse me , it appears I have offended you ? I am sorry I thought my reply was quite clear , ....I have no wish to cause division in Hinduism I think if you read carefuly what I have said in this and other posts is that being Hindu can be both cultural and religious , or to some it is one or the other some feel culturaly Hindu but do not feel committed to the religious aspect , ....

but before we get too carried away this post is about Dharma , .....what is Hindu Dharma , .....the religious Hindu will say thought and action in accordance with Rightiousness , the Cultural Hindu will have a less clear definition ,

personaly I dont know what Hindu Dharma is because Hindus vary greatly and inturpret rightiousness according to their own understanding , .....I only understand Sanatana Dharma where it is understood that Rightiousness is supported by four pillars , .....
Austerity ; tapah , ....control of the senses , control of the body , the speach and the mind , .....
Purity ; shaucham ...inner and outer cleanliness , ...purity of thought of speach and of action , ....
Compassion ; daya ...reverence and consideration towards all forms of life ,....importantly Ahimsa ; non violence , ....
Truthfulness (satyam): In one of the Upanishads there is a categorical statement, with no qualification that tells us to speak the truth (satyam vada). At the same time, speaking the truth must pass the twin gateways of being necessary and kind.

taking these into consideration Compassion need not be entirely passive , ...were I to passivly allow another to hold a wrong veiw without trying to address the discrepancy or flaw in their thinking , my passive action would be unrightious therefore I need to speak firmly occasionaly (in the vague hope that someone might listen), ....otherwise I am failing in kindness by allowing another to continue along the wrong line of thought or beleif , ......

1. Yeah, for villagers in Rajasthan, Pabuji or Ramdeo ji are the Gods and not Vishnu, or Shiva. Such views exists in all parts of India. The generations of these villagers have not even heard the name of Vedas.

you know my thoughts on this , ....''Ishwar Allah Tero Naam , ........'' .one does not have to hear the Name of the vedas only to be intune with vedic principles

2. All the confusion arises if one takes Vedas as the base. If one does not insist on that there is no problem at all. It is very simple, Hinduism is what Hindus do and it differs from one place to another, one community to another, one sect to another and even from one person to another. Why should that be a problem?

this is where you perhaps missunderstand me , .....I said 'Veda' was the root of knowledge , as 'Veda' is Knowledge , it is the primordial knowledge from which the Vedas that we currently know sprang forth , ....the Vedas are the revealed knowledge and practices of purification or specific instruction for one class of persons .

3. What would you say about Nasadiya Sukta. It flatly denies existence of God. There is one more sukta like that, if you want I can search for it.

does it deny the etenality of truth ?...does it deny the rightiousness ? ....does it say that we are free to act as we like that nothing is sacred or worty of respect ?

4. Yeah, many Hindus do not take Vedas as their prime book. So what do we do about them. Deny that they are Hindus?

Prabhu Ji I do not take the Vedas as my ''Prime Book'' but I take Veda the eternall truth as infailable , .....I think you are clinging to the vedas rather that thinking of them as a revealed portion of Veda itself

however there is no doubt about it , ..some of these to whom you refer are culturaly Hindu but not nececarily Religiously Hindu , so this is what Hindu means , it covers the deeply religious and cultural under one umbrella , that is why with some uncertainty I question what exactly Hindu dharma is ? , ...and why personaly I find Sanatana Dharma to be more exacting as it compells me to uphold the four pillars of rightiousness .
Hindu Dahrma , ..how can it uphold rightiousness ? ....Hindus canot even agree between them selves if it is himsa or not to harm animals , there are other things also that they canot come to a concensus upon , ..so in this situation how can there be Hindu Dharma without there then being strict Hindi Dharma (Sanatana Dharma)for those that uphold religious principles , ...and lax Hindu Dharma for those that dont beleive in everything , this becomes selective Dharma where drinking and meat eating is OK , ...exept on the day you go to the temple ? .....what is this ??? ...we can do deals with the Gods , .....''Ok I will do what you say for this one day because i want your blessing ''??? ......or ''OK look at me I am fasting today , I am exibiting control but tomorow I will cheat even my own family members but its ok because I do fasting on Purnima's'' ? ...but will this hindu also say ''OH but I dont beleive in God I just go to temple because of my family tradition'' ???

5. Seeing or hearing has many interpretations. I see rise in industrialization and that of carbon-di-oxide in Earth's atmosphere and consequent reduction in ice cover. That is not 'revelation', that is the knowledge/intelligence. You are not giving credit to the Rishis. Vedas are basically fervent prayers of the Aryans to their Gods and Goddesses for material benefits and protection. Even BhagawadGita accepts that.

''I see rise in industrialisation and that of carbon-di-oxide in Earth's atmosphere and consequent reduction in ice cover,'' ..this is Himsa against the planet , ...this is selfishness of man what has this to do with Veda , ......you are talking about the corruption of the Vedas that caused the Buddha to renounce the practices of his day because the Arya were no longer Arya , no longer Noble ! ...this does not mean that the basis of Vaidika Culture is not valid , it simply means that the practice became corrupted , .....

"Yām imāḿ puṣpitāḿ vācaḿ, pravadanty avipaścitaḥ; veda-vāda-ratāḥ pārtha, nānyad astīti vādinaḥ.
kāmātmānaḥ svarga-parā, janma-karma-phala-pradām; kriyā-viśeṣa-bahulāḿ, bhogaiśvarya-gatiḿ prati."

BG 2.42-43

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas,

Agreed yes they can be but this does not mean that the basis of this Knowledge becomes invalid

which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.
(Do not blame me. I have used Prabhupada's translation)

agreed frutive activities may lead to higer birth , ....but from this higer birth liberation may be attained , ....

I do not mind you using Srila Prabhupada's words , but we must try to understand them in context , ....

Even the name of hymns - Richas - clearly indicates that. Only a person who has not read Vedas can say otherwise. Only at a few places they touch other secular matters like the state of their society, History, Geography.
6. The six darshanas are not Vedic. Samkhya, Vaisesika and Poorva Mimamsa deny Ishwara. 'Sabda' should not be equated to Vedas. They are two different things. Samkhya and Vaisesika accept 'Sabda', whether in Vedas or otherwise if the experience does not go against them, even 'Nyaya' for that matter. No statement automatically becomes truth even if it is in the Vedas. Even what is written in a science book is 'Sabda' if it qualifies by evidence.

I think you have missed entitrly that I said Veda not Vedas

"The reliability of the source is important, and legitimate knowledge can only come from the Sabda of reliable sources. The disagreement between the schools of Hinduism has been on how to establish reliability."

here who is looking to find truth ? .....too many are looking to find difference and to assert authority above the other , all the time the mind is thinking like this the eyes will be blind , .....ears will hear nothing , ......

7. Vedic culture also is a part of Hinduism because the Aryans merged into Hinduism, but it is wrong to take Vedas as the whole of Hinduism. That way more than 50% of Hinduism is left out.

culture is very nice but Knowledge belongs to no one particular group of persons , ...it belongs only to the wise , arya to me means noble , .....

8. Who is a nastika? One who denies Ishwara or one who denies Vedas or one who denies Brahman? I am sure definitions will differ. And then what does one mean by denial? I accept Vedas and SrimadBhagawadGita as the most valuable books of Hindus but deny their divine origin.

to me , ....one who denies Iahwara , Brahman or Eternality of the atman

but for you I have a question , ........Truth is Divine , ..No ?

.........Truth should be sacred , ....No?

...........is Truth divisable or indivasible , ...?
......... is Truth subject to change , ...?

No one should try to fetter Hinduism. Fettered, it will no more be Hinduism.

who is suggesting fettering it , it can do as it pleases , but amongsts its ranks ther will allways be those that fight to maintain its purity by trying to maintain a focus on Rightiousness


रघुपति राघव राजाराम,
पतित पावन सीताराम

सीताराम सीताराम,
भज प्यारे तू सीताराम

ईश्वर अल्लाह तेरो नाम,
सब को सन्मति दे भगवान

 

[Aupmanyav]

I was waiting for your rejoinder, Ratiben. No dispute with Tapas, Shoucha, Daya, Satya; they are indeed the four pillars of Hinduism/Hindu 'dharma' (you may term it as Sanatana, since these are eternal).
1. No Ratiben, there are two facets of life. Vyavaharika and Parmarthika. Ishwar, Allah, Yahweh, does not work (at least for me) in Vyavaharika. I think Gandhi erred here. He experienced the problem with the Khilafat Movement which misfired badly, and he would have understood it better had he been alive in this age with Boko Haram, Islamic State, Taliban, the conspiracies of Christian missionaries, etc.
2. There was knowledge in India even before Vedas came here, ahimsa and meditation are contributions from indigenous thought.
3. How can anyone deny what is eternal truth? The question is about what is it? Nasadiya Sukta does deny Gods.
4. The people to whom you deny Hinduism constitute the majority of Hindus.
"Hindus canot even agree between them selves if it is himsa or not to harm animals?": I think that was conclusively explained by 'Dharmavyādha' in Srimad Bhāgawat Purāna two thousand years ago and by our shastras by saying "Jivo jeevasya bhojanam" and by the verse "Brahmārpanam Brahma Havir, Brahmāgnau Brahmanāhutam, Brahmaiva Tena Gantavyam, Brahmakarma Samādhina."
5. Lord Buddha is the ninth avatāra of Lord Vishnu. We both consider him to be our guru. How come you are saying that Buddha corrupted the Vedas?
6. "Śabda (शब्द) means relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts." There is no reason to limit it just to the Vedas. It becomes a 'pramāna' only after its verification and not automatically.
7. "arya to me means noble": Sure, that is what it meant in later history. But earlier it represented a people, the 'pancha-janas' who had 'yajnas' as their rituals. Others were called as 'anaryas', 'ayajnins'.
8. Yes. Truth is the highest position. That is why I try to stick to truth and nothing else but truth, even at the expense of angering the other members of the forum. Lord Rama said:
"Satyam eva ishwaro loke, satyam dharmāh sadāshritā; satya moolāni sarvāni, satyen nāsti param padam."
Regards,

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ji ,

I was waiting for your rejoinder, Ratiben. No dispute with Tapas, Shoucha, Daya, Satya; they are indeed the four pillars of Hinduism/Hindu 'dharma' (you may term it as Sanatana, since these are eternal).

so we have agreement here so we have established Sanatana Dharma , ...Eternal Religious Principles , then we have also established the eternality of Satyam , ....Truth

1. No Ratiben, there are two facets of life. Vyavaharika and Parmarthika. Ishwar, Allah, Yahweh, does not work (at least for me) in Vyavaharika. I think Gandhi erred here. He experienced the problem with the Khilafat Movement which misfired badly, and he would have understood it better had he been alive i this age with Boko Haram, Islamic State, Taliban, the conspiracies of Christian missionaries, etc.

please forget Ghandi , forget Christian missionaries etc , .....one truth , one eternal truth , ....

2. There was knowledge in India even before Vedas came here, ahimsa and meditation are contributions from indigenous thought.

Jai Jai , ...there was truth it is eternal , ...Krsna says , ...''never was there a time when I did not exist ''
so even beforethe Vedas of this age , before Krsna spoke the Bhagavad Gita , truth was and still is self existant , ...truth becomes Knowledge when we realise it , Krsna knows it as he says , ....''it is just that I remember all my past births but you do not '' .....therefore Krsna is in Knowledge , ..we are forgetfull of that self existing truth , so vedas were given to bring some of mankind to the position of Knowledge by use of ritual prayer and surrender , ....

3. How can anyone deny what is eternal truth? The question is about what is it? Nasadiya Sukta does deny Gods.

you want to know what it is ? how to understand what eternal truth , .......purification , surrender , contemplation , ....
try to get to the root of Rightiousness , .....

4. The people to whom you deny Hinduism constitute the majority of Hindus.

you are mistaken that I deny anyone Hinduism I simply said that it has a strong cultural element therefore due to this strong cultural slant the dharma of the majority of Hindu is Svadharma , ....good for individual Hindus and thier individual families , ......

Sanatana Dharma supports all , ....

5. Lord Buddha is the ninth avatāra of Lord Vishnu. We both consider him to be our guru. How come you are saying that Buddha corrupted the Vedas?

please pleas prabhu you know me better than that , .....please listen to what i said , ....

''I see rise in industrialisation and that of carbon-di-oxide in Earth's atmosphere and consequent reduction in ice cover,'' ..this is Himsa against the planet , ...this is selfishness of man what has this to do with Veda , ......you are talking about the corruption of the Vedas that caused the Buddha to renounce the practices of his day because the Arya were no longer Arya , no longer Noble ! ...this does not mean that the basis of Vaidika Culture is not valid , it simply means that the practice became corrupted , .....

I am saying that the Vedas had become corrupted before the advent of Lord Buddha , you know the Vaisnava veiw is that Lord Buddha came to re establish the moral principles of rightiousness , he did this by going against the corrupted vedas thus he re established religious principles via the teaching of the eightfold path , ....
He did not corrupt the vedas the vedas had become corrupt Brahmins were expecting privilages for their services , this is corupption , Buddha gave freely to all who would listen , ....

6. "Śabda (शब्द) means relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts." There is no reason to limit it just to the Vedas. It becomes a 'pramāna' only after its verification and not automatically.

Sabda is sound , .....it is knowledge it self emenating from that eternal truth what i said if yu read carefully is that the Vedas are instructions for a specific class of person Vedas is not Veda veda is complete and is available to any who seek to find it , .....

7. "arya to me means noble": Sure, that is what it meant in later history. But earlier it represented a people, the 'pancha-janas' who had 'yajnas' as their rituals. Others were called as 'anaryas', 'ayajnins'.

Jai Jai , ....and before Aryans as in noble ones , ...it still meant Noble , ..once in Satya yuga everyone was Noble , ...

8. Yes. Truth is the highest position. That is why I try to stick to truth and nothing else but truth, even at the expense of angering the other members of the forum. Lord Rama said:
"Satyam eva ishwaro loke, satyam dharmāh sadāshritā; satya moolāni sarvāni, satyen nāsti param padam."
Regards,

I refer you to a previous post by your own hand , .....

Apmanyav Ji said , .....

"Satyam eva ishwaro loke, satyam dharmah sadashrita;
satya moolani sarvani, satyen nasti param padam."

(Truth is God in the universe, in truth 'dharma' finds good refuge;
all have their base in truth, there is no station higher than truth.)

Not that 'God is truth', an oft repeated saying, but that 'truth is God'. That makes a world of difference.
And because of that, I have become an atheist Hindu.



then my dearest Ji , ...all have their basis in God for God and Truth are inseperable , ....

 

[atanu]

Namaskaram Ji ,
then my dearest Ji , ...all have their basis in God for God and Truth are inseperable , ....

Yes. The untruthfuness and the untruthful perish. This is the teaching of Veda-Vedanta.

AUM, taught in the Vedas, represent the truth of the three phenomenal states of sleep, dream, and waking, and also, the satyasa-satyam (the truth of the truth), Brahman-Ishwara, that Is the Seer transcending the states.

Without the Seer (Sakshi Chaitanya) there would not have any manifest universe. Materialists-Lokyatas, on account of ignorance or by sheer wilful misrepresentation, reject the Sakshi Chaitanya, which is Ishwara in All. Wilful misrepresentation of the teachings of Veda - Vedas, IMO, is untruthful.

 

[Aupmanyav]

please forget Ghandi, forget Christian missionaries etc, .. one truth, one eternal truth, ..
you want to know what it is? ..
you are mistaken that I deny anyone Hinduism ..
Vedas is not Veda veda ..
once in Satya yuga everyone was Noble ..

Sorry, does not work in Vyavaharika. ..
I already know what is it in each level of observation. Many do not know as they concentrate only on one perspective. Upanishads say 'one who knows the unmanifest as well as the manifest alone wins'. Knowing one is not enough. ..
Happy to hear that. Some would have ousted such people from Hinduism for not knowing Vedas, even when they themselves do not understand the Vedas ..
You hit the nail right on its head. Some people are afflicted by Veda Vada - and that, IMHO, is regrettable ..
Not so. Varaha and Nrisimha avataras occurred in Satya Yuga and asuras were there. Actually asuras have been there even before the creation of the universe - Madhu and Kaitabha .. and if we go by Vedas then Gods too are asuras. 'Mighty is their 'asuratva'' .. not Lord Vishnu though, I have checked. Lord Vishnu is never mentioned as an asura in RigVeda.
Oh yes, Satya IS Ishwara.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ji , ...

Sorry, does not work in Vyavaharika. ..

nothing works in duality it is a state of illusion

I already know what is it in each level of observation. Many do not know as they concentrate only on one perspective. Upanishads say 'one who knows the unmanifest as well as the manifest alone wins'. Knowing one is not enough. ..
Happy to hear that. Some would have ousted such people from Hinduism for not knowing Vedas, even when they themselves do not understand the Vedas ..

my appologies I did not mean you specifiacly , ...just the asker of the quistion , who ever is asking you was adressed to the hyperthetical them , ....and Knowing yes it comes in two waya , ....aquired Knowledge , ..that which has in th9is day and ageg been Googled , .....and that which has been experienced through ones sadhana , .....

You hit the nail right on its head. Some people are afflicted by Veda Vada - and that, IMHO, is regrettable ..

true , in that what is heard must fall on unbiased ears , ears that want to hear to learn not ears that hear to accumulate knowledge to be used as amunition in battles of the ego , ....

Not so. Varaha and Nrisimha avataras occurred in Satya Yuga and asuras were there. Actually asuras have been there even before the creation of the universe - Madhu and Kaitabha .. and if we go by Vedas then Gods too are asuras. 'Mighty is their 'asuratva'' .. not Lord Vishnu though, I have checked. Lord Vishnu is never mentioned as an asura in RigVeda.

I am speaking of the general mentality of people in Satya Yuga , ....Asuras such as Hiranyakashipuare equaly eternal beings but being under illusion as to their true nature they are envious of the Isvara , .....so yes they can appear anywhere , but my intention was to speak of the general mentality of people in Satya Yuga being that of Rightiousness.

Oh yes, Satya IS Ishwara.

and similarly Isvara Is Satya, ...... there can be no sepperation in this matter , so it is concluded , I am happy , ...Despite what Aupmanyav ji says , ....he canot be Atheist as he belives in the supreme authority of Satya