Hinduism is the most generous religion

[Milind2469]

I suspect caste became religiously sanctioned after already existing social classes became formalized and entrenched.
One of the major functions of religion has always been to preserve the existing, ideal social order. Scriptural principles are conveniently cherry-picked.

1) Caste became sanctioned-correct. By religion-incorrect. Hindu was not at all a religion when this occured. It was a socio-political system only. That political system sanctioned it at that time and it was accepted by all. In kaliyug however, when the system is not in it's purest of form, and taken a form of religion, the political and religious leaders made it so called sanctioned. We may not say that their aim was selfish, but anyway what happened later is not good for our image and for the system itself, that I have t agree.
2) Major fuction of religion to preserve the existing social order, and scriptural principles are conveniently cherry-picked.
I don't think so. Hindus are the only system where different pooja methods came into existance, different leaders started their own religions (Jain-Buddha-Sikhs-Shaivs-Vaishnavs) which in many ways set a different social order, have been accepted by our old system. They were considerded Hindus (remember again, Hindu not a religion) until recently. There are many streams in Hindus itself which call for a very different social order than the so called scriptures (Lingayats etc) but are Hindus.
This may not have been possible in any other religion which are strict on scriptures.

 

[Valjean]

All primitive cultures and many isolated ones tend to be much more homogenous than our ethnically diverse "western" cultures. It's impossible to tease religion out of propriety, etiquette or mythology. Such sub-categories simply do not exist and would be difficult to explain to a native.
Today, however, most religious scholars, anthropologists and philosophers accept that there are enough distinctive traits in traditional Indian philosophy to characterise it as a religious system, albeit an eccentric one.

I admit I was thinking primarily of the middle-eastern, abrahamic religions when I commented on their conservative tendencies, but you must admit that many traditional Indians can be very insular and conservative as well.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you characterise Sanatana Dharma as the only system that has developed varied Pujas. Christianity itself has exploded into a myriad of contending doctrinal and ceremonial traditions.
Both Hinduism and western religions are often "strict on scriptures," and in both cases this generally means strict on interpretation.

 

[Milind2469]

All primitive cultures and many isolated ones tend to be much more homogenous than our ethnically diverse "western" cultures. It's impossible to tease religion out of propriety, etiquette or mythology. Such sub-categories simply do not exist and would be difficult to explain to a native.
Today, however, most religious scholars, anthropologists and philosophers accept that there are enough distinctive traits in traditional Indian philosophy to characterise it as a religious system, albeit an eccentric one.
I admit I was thinking primarily of the middle-eastern, abrahamic religions when I commented on their conservative tendencies, but you must admit that many traditional Indians can be very insular and conservative as well.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you characterise Sanatana Dharma as the only system that has developed varied Pujas. Christianity itself has exploded into a myriad of contending doctrinal and ceremonial traditions.
Both Hinduism and western religions are often "strict on scriptures," and in both cases this generally means strict on interpretation.

That's why I am trying to seek what is pure.
Why Godly people (Rama, Krishna) are worshipped as Gods when actually God (Bramha, the chaitanya which created the universe and pervaded it) created them?
Why the most appropriate socio-political system at a perticular time , which were called castes became a dictum of religion?
When we know that the rishis, when decided to seek the truth, denounced everything and went in the hills so that their mind would remain pure, did yoga to realise the final truth; how can we justify icons, idols, temples, physical matter such as tarmeric, kumkum, flowers, scented sticks and so on, as way to reach God?
What is pure and what is not?
Do we base our opinion on the current practices?
Should Hinduism look like whatever 'way' you look at it?

 

[akshar]

That's why I am trying to seek what is pure.
Why Godly people (Rama, Krishna) are worshipped as Gods when actually God (Bramha, the chaitanya which created the universe and pervaded it) created them?
Why the most appropriate socio-political system at a perticular time , which were called castes became a dictum of religion?
When we know that the rishis, when decided to seek the truth, denounced everything and went in the hills so that their mind would remain pure, did yoga to realise the final truth; how can we justify icons, idols, temples, physical matter such as tarmeric, kumkum, flowers, scented sticks and so on, as way to reach God?
What is pure and what is not?
Do we base our opinion on the current practices?
Should Hinduism look like whatever 'way' you look at it?

True Brahma created the universe but he is not the Supreme Entity, people worship Ram(NOT RAMA!), Krishna, because they are incarnations of Vishnu bhagawan who created Brahma. The supreme entity is Purshottam, is perfect saint is akshar, akshardham the supreme abode of god.

P.S when hindu gods are spelt its like Hanuman not Hanumana or (not a god) ravan not ravana, shiv not shiva or lakshman not lakshmana.

Peace blad

Wagwan

 

[lilithu]

True Brahma created the universe but he is not the Supreme Entity, people worship Ram(NOT RAMA!), Krishna, because they are incarnations of Vishnu bhagawan who created Brahma. The supreme entity is Purshottam, is perfect saint is akshar, akshardham the supreme abode of god.

P.S when hindu gods are spelt its like Hanuman not Hanumana or (not a god) ravan not ravana, shiv not shiva or lakshman not lakshmana.

Peace blad

Wagwan

I thought Brahma was the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. (And no, I'm not going to spell it Shiv.) You're saying the Vishnu created Brahma? I mean in a way that makes sense because every moment of existence that's preserved is creation anew.

I thought Brahman was the "Supreme Entity" tho truth be told I've never been clear on the relationship between Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva with Brahman. And am totally lost on how "Krishna Consciousness" relates to all of this. As far as I can tell, Krishna is like Christ, refering to both a finite incarnation and an infinite transcendance.

Seyorni, when you have the time, could you clear this up for me? thanx.

 

[Valjean]

You're right, Lilithu. In mainstream Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma if Milind prefers, Brahman is Reality/Existence itself -- timeless, omnipresent, featureless, impersonal and unchanging. Since Brahman is beyond ordinary human comprehension It's assigned features, for convenience. Its creative aspect is personified as Brahma, who assembles undifferentiated subatomic stuff into the universe, Vishnu, who holds it all together, and Shiva who disassembles it again into featureless Brahman.

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, however, is unorthodox even by Hindu standards (and that's saying a lot ). They're dualists (advaiti) and do not, I believe, acknowledge an undifferentiated Reality/Consciousness underlying the Universe. They practice the yoga of devotion (bhakti), and their devotion is focused on the personality of Krishna. Because Krishna is a manifestation of Vishnu, and they discount Brahman, they sort of have to place Vishnu/Krishna at the head of the pantheon as the Supreme God.

That's my interpretation of it, anyway, gleaned from a lot of discussion with them. I expect corrections will follow in subsequent posts.

As far as transliterating Sanskrit terms into the Roman alphabet, there are a lot of different methods. Usually translations just use an imitated pronunciation method, but ISKCON prefers the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). This is, technically, very accurate, as each Devanagari letter has a Roman equivalent, and precise spelling is preserved. But the Devanagari alphabet has a lot more letters than the Latin, so IAST uses a lot of diacritical marks -- dots, accents, &c above and below the letters to indicate precise Devanagari spelling.

The terminal "a" you see on so many Sanskrit terms derives from the fact that a Sanskrit consonant is syllabic and automatically carries a terminal "a" unless certain marks or spelling sequences remove it.
In many of Sanskrit's modern descendants this terminal "a" is dropped, so you will see Rama, Nama, or Satya pronounced as Ram, Nam or Sat.

If you want to be technically faithful to the original Sanskrit the terminal "a" should be preserved, but in casual conversation many people drop it.
I think Akshar has got it backward!

 

[lilithu]

Thanks Seyorni.

You're right, Lilithu. In mainstream Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma if Milind prefers, Brahman is Reality/Existence itself -- timeless, omnipresent, featureless, impersonal and unchanging. Since Brahman is beyond ordinary human comprehension It's assigned features, for convenience. Its creative aspect is personified as Brahma, who assembles undifferentiated subatomic stuff into the universe, Vishnu, who holds it all together, and Shiva who disassembles it again into featureless Brahman.

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, however, is unorthodox even by Hindu standards (and that's saying a lot ). They're dualists (advaiti) and do not, I believe, acknowledge an undifferentiated Reality/Consciousness underlying the Universe. They practice the yoga of devotion (bhakti), and their devotion is focused on the personality of Krishna. Because Krishna is a manifestation of Vishnu, and they discount Brahman, they sort of have to place Vishnu/Krishna at the head of the pantheon as the Supreme God.

I was aware the "Hare Krishnas" are "unorthodox" but get confused when people appear to be "Hindu" and then make statements contrary to what I understand Hinduism to be. That is not a criticism of anyone. Obviously the same thing happens in Christianity; I'm just more accustomed to wading through the differences there.

And I can also understand the desire to worship a concrete being rather than an impersonal transcendance. Brahman appeals to the mind while Krishna appeals to the heart. I see this same tension in Christianity with Father/Christ and in Buddhism.

But it was my understanding that in "mainstream Hinduism" there is recognition of the validity of the different kinds of yogyas, jnana, bhakti, karma... but even those who practice bhakti yoga recognize that Brahman is ultimate. They simply choose to worship/love/devote themselves to a deva because Brahman is too impersonal. Is this correct? In which case ISKCON may be a form of bhakti yoga but its theology is quite different.

As far as transliterating Sanskrit terms into the Roman alphabet, there are a lot of different methods. Usually translations just use an imitated pronunciation method, but ISKCON prefers the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). This is, technically, very accurate, as each Devanagari letter has a Roman equivalent, and precise spelling is preserved. But the Devanagari alphabet has a lot more letters than the Latin, so IAST uses a lot of diacritical marks -- dots, accents, &c above and below the letters to indicate precise Devanagari spelling.

The terminal "a" you see on so many Sanskrit terms derives from the fact that a Sanskrit consonant is syllabic and automatically carries a terminal "a" unless certain marks or spelling sequences remove it.
In many of Sanskrit's modern descendants this terminal "a" is dropped, so you will see Rama, Nama, or Satya pronounced as Ram, Nam or Sat.

If you want to be technically faithful to the original Sanskrit the terminal "a" should be preserved, but in casual conversation many people drop it.
I think Akshar has got it backward!

I've noticed that a lot of my Indian friends drop the last syllable of certain words. So I hear Ganesha pronounced as Ganesh (so much so that that's how I refer to him now), and I've seen Shiva spelled at Siva (and Vishnu as Visnu), which makes me think that the "sh" sound there is less aspirated than an English "sh." But honestly, I have never heard anyone refer to Shiva as "Shiv." Could this be a regional difference?

Shiva is my favorite deity btw (along with Ganesh and Parvati/Kali). I realize that's me talking as a silly westerner because a real Hindu doesn't get to choose his or her deity. Most of my Hindu friends "worship" Vishnu (if they do pujas at all) because that's what they were born into. But for me, while I recognize that the preservation of existence is necessary and good, and I am grateful for this life and this world, but always there is the call towards dissolution, the longing to return back to the Divine Source.

"As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, O God." (Psalm 41:1)

 

[akshar]

You're right, Lilithu. In mainstream Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma if Milind prefers, Brahman is Reality/Existence itself -- timeless, omnipresent, featureless, impersonal and unchanging. Since Brahman is beyond ordinary human comprehension It's assigned features, for convenience. Its creative aspect is personified as Brahma, who assembles undifferentiated subatomic stuff into the universe, Vishnu, who holds it all together, and Shiva who disassembles it again into featureless Brahman.

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, however, is unorthodox even by Hindu standards (and that's saying a lot ). They're dualists (advaiti) and do not, I believe, acknowledge an undifferentiated Reality/Consciousness underlying the Universe. They practice the yoga of devotion (bhakti), and their devotion is focused on the personality of Krishna. Because Krishna is a manifestation of Vishnu, and they discount Brahman, they sort of have to place Vishnu/Krishna at the head of the pantheon as the Supreme God.

That's my interpretation of it, anyway, gleaned from a lot of discussion with them. I expect corrections will follow in subsequent posts.

As far as transliterating Sanskrit terms into the Roman alphabet, there are a lot of different methods. Usually translations just use an imitated pronunciation method, but ISKCON prefers the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). This is, technically, very accurate, as each Devanagari letter has a Roman equivalent, and precise spelling is preserved. But the Devanagari alphabet has a lot more letters than the Latin, so IAST uses a lot of diacritical marks -- dots, accents, &c above and below the letters to indicate precise Devanagari spelling.

The terminal "a" you see on so many Sanskrit terms derives from the fact that a Sanskrit consonant is syllabic and automatically carries a terminal "a" unless certain marks or spelling sequences remove it.
In many of Sanskrit's modern descendants this terminal "a" is dropped, so you will see Rama, Nama, or Satya pronounced as Ram, Nam or Sat.

If you want to be technically faithful to the original Sanskrit the terminal "a" should be preserved, but in casual conversation many people drop it.
I think Akshar has got it backward!

Thanks for that, i think i really was meant to points out ones like Hanumana which i do find a bit iffy. Nvm thanks for the Sanskrit lesson

 

[akshar]

I don't suppose anyone believes in Akshar-Purshottama

 

[Valjean]

Thanks Seyorni.

I was aware the "Hare Krishnas" are "unorthodox" but get confused when people appear to be "Hindu" and then make statements contrary to what I understand Hinduism to be. That is not a criticism of anyone. Obviously the same thing happens in Christianity; I'm just more accustomed to wading through the differences there.

And I can also understand the desire to worship a concrete being rather than an impersonal transcendance. Brahman appeals to the mind while Krishna appeals to the heart. I see this same tension in Christianity with Father/Christ and in Buddhism.

But it was my understanding that in "mainstream Hinduism" there is recognition of the validity of the different kinds of yogyas, jnana, bhakti, karma... but even those who practice bhakti yoga recognize that Brahman is ultimate. They simply choose to worship/love/devote themselves to a deva because Brahman is too impersonal. Is this correct? In which case ISKCON may be a form of bhakti yoga but its theology is quite different.

My tradition is advaita, jnani, and Shaivite. ISKCON's is almost entirely opposite -- dvaita, bhakti and Vishnaivite. But I've never had an ISKCONi discredit my tradition or hold that it's a futile path -- they just insist that theirs is faster, easier, and more scripturally correct. We may disagree, but we honor each other's yogas.

As I understand it, ISKCONis do not believe in the ultimate unity of the individual with the universal. They believe in a fundamental difference between Krishna and themselves, in Hindu parlance, dvaiti -- dualism.

ISKCON's Bible is the Bhagavad Gita. In it there are many passages that refer to Krishna as the ultimate and highest God, and it's easy to see how they arrived at their interpretation. But an orthodox (if there be such a creature) Hindu might point out that the Gita is not Gospel (Shruti), but Shmriti -- tradition of human origin. And even those who hold the Gita sacred generally do not interpret it in such a dualistic and Krishna centered way.

I've noticed that a lot of my Indian friends drop the last syllable of certain words. So I hear Ganesha pronounced as Ganesh (so much so that that's how I refer to him now), and I've seen Shiva spelled at Siva (and Vishnu as Visnu), which makes me think that the "sh" sound there is less aspirated than an English "sh." But honestly, I have never heard anyone refer to Shiva as "Shiv." Could this be a regional difference?

The terminal "a" is pure Sanskrit. In Gujarati, Hindi, &c the "a' is deleted, just as Latin's "~us" is replaced with "~o" in modern Italian.

The English "sh" sound has two similar sounds in Sanskrit. The closest to the English pronunciation, in IAST script, is represented as an "s" with an acute accent over it. There is also an "s" with a dot under it, which represents the Devanagari letter in Krishna.

Shiva is my favorite deity btw (along with Ganesh and Parvati/Kali). I realize that's me talking as a silly westerner because a real Hindu doesn't get to choose his or her deity. Most of my Hindu friends "worship" Vishnu (if they do pujas at all) because that's what they were born into. But for me, while I recognize that the preservation of existence is necessary and good, and I am grateful for this life and this world, but always there is the call towards dissolution, the longing to return back to the Divine Source.

I'm delighted at your religious sophistication in Hindu theology, Lilithu. My previous assessment of you as a religious scholar is re-inforced.
The appreciation of Shiva and (heaven forbid!) Kali, reminds me of Jesuit theology in Christianity.
It pains me, though, to think of Hindu religion as being set in stone. Caste and Dharma have become thoroughly mixed-up. A person is free to be whatever his/her conscience dictates.

If your beliefs accord with Shinto -- voila! -- you are a Shintoist, with Lamaism -- you're aTibetan Buddhist, with Zoroasteranism -- your a Parsi. with String Theory -- you're a Hindu.

"As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, O God." (Psalm 41:1)[/quote]
</IMG>

 

[lilithu]

My tradition is advaita, jnani, and Shaivite.

Yes, if I were Hindu, I'd be in your camp.

ISKCON's is almost entirely opposite -- dvaita, bhakti and Vishnaivite. But I've never had an ISKCONi discredit my tradition or hold that it's a futile path -- they just insist that theirs is faster, easier, and more scripturally correct. We may disagree, but we honor each other's yogas.

I may have said this already (it's been a couple of days and I'm too lazy to check my previous post) but similar tensions exist in Christianity and Buddhism. In Christianity, the equivalent of the bhakti marga predominates (salvation through acceptance of Jesus as savior and the subsequent devotion to him), but a small group of Christians have always believed in a tradition of self-culture through the divine within. (Unitarianism comes from that tradition.) In that vein, Jesus himself isn't really necessary for salvation, just a really good role model. In Buddhism the equivalent of jnana marga predominates, but some small sects of Buddhism believe in salvation through placing one's trust completely in the Buddha, most notably Shin buddhism in Japan. My guess is that this is a universal "disagreement" that spans different religious traditions.

I'm probably not saying this as well as I could, but basically:
dualist/"God" and human separate/humans need external divine intervention for salvation
non-dualist/"God" and humans not separate/the means for salvation already within us

As I understand it, ISKCONis do not believe in the ultimate unity of the individual with the universal. They believe in a fundamental difference between Krishna and themselves, in Hindu parlance, dvaiti -- dualism.

One way that I heard it described is "I want to taste sugar, not be sugar."

ISKCON's Bible is the Bhagavad Gita. In it there are many passages that refer to Krishna as the ultimate and highest God, and it's easy to see how they arrived at their interpretation. But an orthodox (if there be such a creature) Hindu might point out that the Gita is not Gospel (Shruti), but Shmriti -- tradition of human origin. And even those who hold the Gita sacred generally do not interpret it in such a dualistic and Krishna centered way.

Yes, I've heard those terms before but forgotten them. Thank you! The distinction is very useful. And thank you as well for the Sanskrit lessons. (I am considering a Ph.D. in theology. If I do, I will be learning Sanskrit.)

I'm delighted at your religious sophistication in Hindu theology, Lilithu. My previous assessment of you as a religious scholar is re-inforced.
The appreciation of Shiva and (heaven forbid!) Kali, reminds me of Jesuit theology in Christianity.

Thank you, Seyorni, for the kinds words. Tho I have to say that out of the major world religions I am the least familiar with Hinduism. All that I know comes from talking with people, as we are doing. I have read the Gita and some of the Upanishads, but I don't think that a person can really understand a religion just by reading texts.

Did you know that I attend a Jesuit university? I'm finishing a master's in religious studies at Georgetown. Yet I have no idea what you mean by Jesuit theology. I am drawn to Shiva and especially Kali because there is (I feel) more to be gained by embracing what is not obviously pleasant/beautiful/etc and recognizing those elements within oneself, and recognizing that they are just as necessary for existence as the happy stuff. It's not that I think that Kali is misunderstood and actually warm and fuzzy when you get to know her. She terrifies me actually. But there are aspects of myself that terrify me. (Frankly, I'm befuddled by people who do not recognize such darkness within themselves. Is it not there? Is it just me? Or do they just not recognize it?) And only in the last few years have I come to understand that the same darkness that I sometimes wish I could excise from myself also contributes to the positive things. They are part and parcel of the whole.

It pains me, though, to think of Hindu religion as being set in stone. Caste and Dharma have become thoroughly mixed-up. A person is free to be whatever his/her conscience dictates.

If your beliefs accord with Shinto -- voila! -- you are a Shintoist, with Lamaism -- you're aTibetan Buddhist, with Zoroasteranism -- your a Parsi. with String Theory -- you're a Hindu.

lol! Well, my beliefs do accord with String Theory... but I don't really have a problem with people worshiping within the tradition into which they were born (this coming from a UU, which is the quintessential "shopper" of religions). There was a time when I investigated many different religions but couldn't pick one because there was always something about the dogma of each one that I could not accept. Now, with a better understanding of the nuances of these traditions, I realize that I could have been any one of them if I had been willing to make the commitment to work out my own beliefs within the established framework. There is as much to be said about working within constraints and growing into a religion as there is for being free to choose between religions. My two cents anyway.

 

[Milind2469]

A good verbal between ISCONites and Swaminarayaites. they all complement the Hindu religion and not divide it. Hindus repect all sampradayas. but tell you something, if any member of any sampradaya speaks bad about other sampradaya, it's a failure of his sampradaya which has not taught the basics of Hinduism to him.

Dwait and Adwait are same to me. Dwait is adwait and adwait is dwait. It's how you pereive it.

It's like following. If you go on breaking any matter down to last particle what you get is pure energy which due to motion gives out some mass. Ultimately this mass can be billions of tonnes. So what is it? Matter? Or energy? It's both! MAtter? OK. A matter and energy combo? Ok.

Dwait? OK. Adwait? OK.

Am I a matter? You bet! I am made of panchmahabhuta (earth,water,fire/energy, wind/gas,space). I am made of these elements and going to become these elements after "I" cease to exist. But am I only matter? No. I have soul in me which made me live. This atma is sent to my body by parmatma. Atma is pure, super knowledgeable and when it gets detached from wordly maya and gets the truth with proper means, it can go to parmatma the same way my matter goes to earthly matter. I am a combination of both. That's why "I" am.

So is the maya created by parmatma? if not, how can "I" exist? The parmatma isn't stupid? So he has created it just as he has the atma. So just as my matter, my soul also comes from him. So we all come from him. remember, matter is only maya, it is actually the energy, chaitanya, which only by some calculation becomes earth, iron,gold,wood, stone etc. As we all know the subatomic particles are same in all atoms.

So i believe dwaits and adwaits are only the ways to look at them so as to facilitate their particular ways of worshipping/ meditation.

 

[akshar]

The terminal "a" you see on so many Sanskrit terms derives from the fact that a Sanskrit consonant is syllabic and automatically carries a terminal "a" unless certain marks or spelling sequences remove it.
In many of Sanskrit's modern descendants this terminal "a" is dropped, so you will see Rama, Nama, or Satya pronounced as Ram, Nam or Sat.

If you want to be technically faithful to the original Sanskrit the terminal "a" should be preserved, but in casual conversation many people drop it.
I think Akshar has got it backward!

Rubbish, i found out that its the other way around. A sanskrit schol sadhu at my mandir told me that a should not be there in the spelling.

 

[Valjean]

Rubbish, i found out that its the other way around. A sanskrit schol sadhu at my mandir told me that a should not be there in the spelling.

Google Sanskrit or Sanskrit linguistics, Akshar.

 

[akshar]

Google Sanskrit or Sanskrit linguistics, Akshar.

ok, although i doubt the words of a sadhu with a phd in sanskrit will change my mind.

 

[akshar]

Just wondering, Seyorni. Do you know who akshar actually is?