Hinduist would you agree with this statement?

[Poeticus]

Please do forward the threads on this regard. I hope there will be also progressive solutions with respect to the plight of the dalits and untouchables, in these threads.

Forwarding the threads wouldn't be productive. Like I said, be a productive member of RF and use the search feature yourself. No one is going to do your homework for you.

Considering the fact the Bhagavan Buddha is considered in high esteem in India especially among the untouchables, I found your questioning of Bhagavan as a way of addressing him , highly disrespectful.

There are hindu spiritual masters themselves, who addresses him as Bhagavan , and many who views him as a great sage as I mentioned before.

That's all fine and dandy, but questioning someone's divinity is not insulting. To be insulted by such proves the inherent persecution complex that is present in many religionists around the world.

This would be no different than a Jew saying that Christ wasn't the Messiah. How about you be consistent and condemn that as well? (even though there is nothing insulting about a religious society not viewing a certain highly popular person as divine - however, you seem to have it otherwise; it figures, eh?)

I never received any verifiable viewpoint that it has been used in a different context.

And as I mentioned, the very fact that many Hindu spiritual masters I know, have used it in the universalistic sense , is enough proof for me about its real intended context.

Why on earth should i accept the half-baked truths of a pseudo-scholar like you !

For the love of the Shri Gods, the phrase was never used for universalism! What part of that don't you understand?

I posted links citing the MU, Panchatantra, and the Hitopadesha. In all three never is the phrase used for universalism.

Here's another one for you:

"Universality is an exaggeration" - Purva Mimamsa Sutra-s

And I would repeat here again what Ambedkar said, ' A people and their religion must be judged by social standards based on social ethics. No other standard would have any meaning if religion is held to be necessary and good for the well-being of the people.'

You should judge a religion according to approvable benchmarks of justice and human rights , and not by comparison with others.

I shouldn't have to do anything other than support Hinduism as a Hindu in the HinduDIR. What part of that are you not getting? It isn't that difficult to understand.

You answered to my posts and I answered back. How is that equivalent to you being trolled !!!!

No, I did not. Post 50 was not addressed to you. You made post 51, remember?

 

[Ravi500]

Forwarding the threads wouldn't be productive. Like I said, be a productive member of RF and use the search feature yourself. No one is going to do your homework for you.

Fact is, I checked, and not even a single thread has been assigned to the plight of the untouchables in India , and so also with the progressive solutions for their plight.

That's all fine and dandy, but questioning someone's divinity is not insulting. To be insulted by such proves the inherent persecution complex that is present in many religionists around the world.

I did not feel insulted by your statement, as I considered it immature . You were obviously had an issue with swami vivekananda as well.

But since you were questioning my inclination to honour Buddha with the title of Bhagavan, I felt it highly irreverential and stated thus.

Respect and reverence for the sages, especially those that have done great good, is a trait of the hindu culture.

This would be no different than a Jew saying that Christ wasn't the Messiah. How about you be consistent and condemn that as well? (even though there is nothing insulting about a religious society not viewing a certain highly popular person as divine - however, you seem to have it otherwise; it figures, eh?)

Jews have not acknowledged Christ,and does not now as well.

That is not the case with Bhagavan Buddha who has been spoken about in glowing terms by many hindu spiritual masters and those which I have mentioned.

If you consider yourself a greater spiritual master than the masters I mentioned, why don't you mention that and I will definitely leave this thread in peace.

For the love of the Shri Gods, the phrase was never used for universalism! What part of that don't you understand?

I posted links citing the MU, Panchatantra, and the Hitopadesha. In all three never is the phrase used for universalism.

Here's another one for you:

"Universality is an exaggeration" - Purva Mimamsa Sutra-s

The only reference point for me is the words of the sages. And the teachings of the upanishad is enough for me in this regards.


In the Mahopanishad - 6.72 the verses are used to describe as one of the attributes of an individual who has attained the highest level of spiritual progress, and one who is capable of performing his wordly duties without attachment to material possessions.

This means that the enlightened sage sees the whole world as one family, and sees all as his brethren.

Indeed a worthy trait to emulate.

I shouldn't have to do anything other than support Hinduism as a Hindu in the HinduDIR. What part of that are you not getting? It isn't that difficult to understand.

I was born in hinduism, and I am supporting Hinduism by pointing out its negativities, which can then be removed.

If the body has cancerous cells, and if you ignore it, it will only spread and cause issues.
If you are aware, and take necessary steps of medication and chemotherapy, you can heal the body. Otherwise , there is a good chance the body will die.

I hope you get the idea what I am trying to convey.

No, I did not. Post 50 was not addressed to you. You made post 51, remember?

Lol. Post 50 was an obvious answer to my post 49 and preceding .

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/159563-hinduist-would-you-agree-statement-5.html

 

[Poeticus]

Fact is, I checked, and not even a single thread has been assigned to the plight of the untouchables in India , and so also with the progressive solutions for their plight.

...there are threads on the caste-system, not specifically untouchable-centric, since a thread on caste would already include the plights of lower caste peoples, like myself. Are you even low caste yourself? I was born in abominable conditions. My parents worked hard to get where they are now, even if me and my family are from "low origins".

I did not feel insulted by your statement, as I considered it immature . You were obviously had an issue with swami vivekananda as well.

But since you were questioning my inclination to honour Buddha with the title of Bhagavan, I felt it highly irreverential and stated thus.

Respect and reverence for the sages, especially those that have done great good, is a trait of the hindu culture.

There is no such thing as Hindu culture; neither is there "Indian culture" - which in actuality is diverse as are fruits and plants. There are only tangible similarities across various Indic groups that constitute the constructed notion of "Indian culture".

Jews have not acknowledged Christ,and does not now as well.

And, Jews have every right to not acknowledge Christ, just like how many Vaishnava-s opt for Balarama rather than Buddha being an avatar. And, traditional Shaiva-s don't even believe in avatars. Therefore...

That is not the case with Bhagavan Buddha who has been spoken about in glowing terms by many hindu spiritual masters and those which I have mentioned.

...that is the case with the Buddha, definitively.

If you consider yourself a greater spiritual master than the masters I mentioned, why don't you mention that and I will definitely leave this thread in peace.
​

I consider myself as Hindu-American.

The only reference point for me is the words of the sages. And the teachings of the upanishad is enough for me in this regards.

In the Mahopanishad - 6.72 the verses are used to describe as one of the attributes of an individual who has attained the highest level of spiritual progress, and one who is capable of performing his wordly duties without attachment to material possessions.

This means that the enlightened sage sees the whole world as one family, and sees all as his brethren.

You do realize that seeing the world as "one family" is still materialistic, right? Attachment in and of itself is materialistic. Not only does the the MU not suggest universality, it speaks on something completely different: individualism.

I was born in hinduism, and I am supporting Hinduism by pointing out its negativities, which can then be removed.

If the body has cancerous cells, and if you ignore it, it will only spread and cause issues.
If you are aware, and take necessary steps of medication and chemotherapy, you can heal the body. Otherwise , there is a good chance the body will die.

I hope you get the idea what I am trying to convey.

1. You are still treating Hinduism as monolithic. For example, the sentence, "I am supporting Hinduism by pointing out its negativities", is directly addressing "Hinduism" as monolithic.

2. Therefore, I am not getting the idea that you are trying to convey. Thus, the facts made about caste being societal rather than religious still stand valid, a point that has yet to be refuted properly.

Lol. Post 50 was an obvious answer to my post 49 and preceding .

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/159563-hinduist-would-you-agree-statement-5.html

You made 51. You didn't have to.

Anyway, I have better things to do: like finish my school work. This will be my last post regarding this topic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are also upper caste feudal lords who are oppressing the dalits and untouchables.

At present, it is not a question of upper castes or lower castes. It is the question as to who is in political power. Those who have political power, it could be upper castes, 'Other Backward Classes', or even 'dalits', misuse it because they can force the police to overlook the cases. The BSP dalit legislator from Varanasi was a notorious character who committed many crimes.

Anyway your original question was related to dalits allowed to enter temples , which I answered in the negative.

Did I have a question about dalits? I do not remember to have asked any.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you willing to marry a Dalit female/male and take her/him as your wife/husband? Are you willing to support inter-caste marriage and inter-caste societal integration? I know where I stand: I am supportive of inter-caste marriage and integration -

No. I am not in favor of inter-caste marriage. There are more chances that such a marriage would not be successful. There would be a lot of difference in traditions. Inter-caste marriages are happening. They would increase in future, but let us not force the issue. Let people remain in their castes. But I am against any discrimination on basis of caste.

 

[Ravi500]

At present, it is not a question of upper castes or lower castes. It is the question as to who is in political power. Those who have political power, it could be upper castes, 'Other Backward Classes', or even 'dalits', misuse it because they can force the police to overlook the cases. The BSP dalit legislator from Varanasi was a notorious character who committed many crimes.Did I have a question about dalits? I do not remember to have asked any.

Here you go.

You asked my clarification on....

"It is unfortunate that "Even today, there are many lower caste hindus who are barred from entering temples in certain areas due to caste discrimination."


http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/159563-hinduist-would-you-agree-statement-3.html

 

[Ravi500]

No. I am not in favor of inter-caste marriage. There are more chances that such a marriage would not be successful. There would be a lot of difference in traditions. Inter-caste marriages are happening. They would increase in future, but let us not force the issue. Let people remain in their castes. But I am against any discrimination on basis of caste.

There is nothing wrong in inter-caste marriages or inter-religious marriages taking place.

Inter-caste marriages seems to be the trend in many urban areas of India. It is slowly percolating to the rural areas as well based on some examples I have seen.

 

[Ravi500]

...there are threads on the caste-system, not specifically untouchable-centric, since a thread on caste would already include the plights of lower caste peoples, like myself.

Of the hundreds of threads , there is not even a single one devoted to the plight of the untouchables, and on measures to resolve them.

Are you even low caste yourself? I was born in abominable conditions. My parents worked hard to get where they are now, even if me and my family are from "low origins".

I consider myself as a human being.

You must understand that as someone of low caste origin, many of the privileges you and your parents enjoy came out of the sacrifices of those who fought against casteism and caste-based prejudices. Otherwise you would have been stuck in your own caste-based occupation even now, and same goes for your descendants.

There is no such thing as Hindu culture; neither is there "Indian culture" - which in actuality is diverse as are fruits and plants. There are only tangible similarities across various Indic groups that constitute the constructed notion of "Indian culture".

There is an underlying unity in the seeming diversity.

And, Jews have every right to not acknowledge Christ, just like how many Vaishnava-s opt for Balarama rather than Buddha being an avatar. And, traditional Shaiva-s don't even believe in avatars. Therefore...

...that is the case with the Buddha, definitively.

For millions of Hindus ,including me, he is a great sage, greater than most of the hindu sages, in fact.

I consider myself as Hindu-American.

Question is with regard to whether you consider yourself a greater master than the spiritual masters I mentioned. Not your nationality.

You do realize that seeing the world as "one family" is still materialistic, right? Attachment in and of itself is materialistic. Not only does the the MU not suggest universality, it speaks on something completely different: individualism.

The MU goes as follows....

In the Mahopanishad - 6.72 the verses are used to describe as one of the attributes of an individual who has attained the highest level of spiritual progress, and one who is capable of performing his wordly duties without attachment to material possessions.

There is no individualism in this, only the traits of an enlightened sage.

And I have been fortunate enough to be with some, and hence I know by example itself.

1. You are still treating Hinduism as monolithic. For example, the sentence, "I am supporting Hinduism by pointing out its negativities", is directly addressing "Hinduism" as monolithic.

And you are indulging in trivialities . If it is not monolithic , would this forum itself exist.

My points with regard to casteism, also falls mainly under hinduism or its various forms, call it whatever you like.

2. Therefore, I am not getting the idea that you are trying to convey. Thus, the facts made about caste being societal rather than religious still stand valid, a point that has yet to be refuted properly..

Perhaps it may be hard for you to understand these things sitting in the west.

You made 51. You didn't have to.

You made 50 which was in clear reference to my posts, though not having any quotes of mine . You didn't have to.

Anyway, I have better things to do: like finish my school work. This will be my last post regarding this topic.

Good. There is still a lot to learn at your age.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. which means you don't have faith in God as per Hindu understanding,and blatantly stating that to other believers is a belittlement of the Hindu deities, ..

This also makes sense why you are strongly attached to the distorted race-related issue of Arya.

You don't believe in Brahman or Krishna,and you say 'Brahman equally encompasses Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and the Mother Goddess too (Mariamman, Adi Shakti).'

What do you mean by Hindu understanding? There are thousands of kinds of Hindu understandings. Mine also is one. If I follow 'advaita' of a strict sort, how can I have a God different from other things? Point to me one post where I have belittled Hindu (i.e., Gods and Goddesses of my culture).

The advent of Aryans is a historical question for me and not a racial one. I am equally interested in the history of Gujars (were they Kushanas? "Originally, King Kani(sh)ka, the king of Gu-zar [Kucha] and the Li [Khotanese] ruler, King Vijaya Krīti, and others led an army into India" - Wikipedia), or they are Qajars from Kazakhistan (Qajars Dynasty of Iran - Wikipedia). My family has a background in history.

No need to roll eyes. I am an atheist, but I am still a Hindu. I do not want the various sects of my religion to fight with each other. That is why I say 'Brahman encompasses all Gods and Goddesses'. This is my correct position of 'advaita'. Brahman also encompasses all humans, all castes, all animals, all vegetation, and even all non-living objects. Brahman is the sole entity that exists. And the closest that we know of any such thing, it is 'physical energy' which gives rise to mass also. First understand my position well.

 

[Ravi500]

What do you mean by Hindu understanding?

All the questions that pertain to the four purusharthas -- artha, kama, and especially dharma and moksha .

There are thousands of kinds of Hindu understandings. Mine also is one. If I follow 'advaita' of a strict sort, how can I have a God different from other things?

How does atheism and Advaita blend !

Advaita, if you have gone through the teachings of Shankara, J.Krishnamurti and Ramana, is actually a state of heightened consciousness where no duality exist.

If someone comes up to me and says that he has a different interpretation than this of advaita, I would not be able to see it seriously.

There are many quacks or frauds in the form of doctors, no matter how well-intentioned and sincere they may be.

If seeing their sincerity and enthusiasm, you take their medications, you probably might have to say goodbye to life.

Same thing is there in the spiritual field, with fraudulent spiritual masters or fraudulent philosophers who are themselves on the wrong track and endeavour to set others on the wrong track, thereby generating a lot of negative karma for themselves in the process.

The advent of Aryans is a historical question for me and not a racial one.

Its relevance in history lies only in the fact that it was used to charecterise the sages of excellent character and conduct.

There was never a racial context to it.

Also the ancient Aryas were universalistic, and this is why many people from outside were allowed to settle in India and adopt the Hindu or Buddhist dharma.

The ancient Jewish tribes who settled in Kashmir is a good point.

Krinvanto Vishwam Arya -- Make the whole world noble.

This teachings of the Vedas itself illustrate the original meaning of the term Arya.

I am equally interested in the history of Gujars (were they Kushanas? "Originally, King Kani(sh)ka, the king of Gu-zar [Kucha] and the Li [Khotanese] ruler, King Vijaya Krīti, and others led an army into India" - Wikipedia). My family has a background in history.

The Greeks, Jews, Turks , Huns, Kushans and many other invaders have made their genetic imprint in India.

No need to roll eyes. I am an atheist, but I am still a Hindu. I do not want the various sects of my religion to fight with each other.

Issue is contradictory. How can you say that you are an atheist and yet a Hindu ;

and at the same time concerned about the sects of a religion you have rejected.

(Here I perceive the term 'atheist' as one who rejects divinity. )

That is why I say 'Brahman encompasses all Gods and Goddesses'.

Again , when you reject divinity, how can you accept the idea of Brahman then, with all the gods and goddesses .

This is my correct position of 'advaita'. Brahman also encompasses all humans, all castes, all animals, all vegetation, and even all non-living objects. Brahman is the sole entity that exists. And the closest that we know of any such thing, it is 'physical energy' which gives rise to mass also. First understand my position well.

Brahman is really a state of consciousness , where one perceives the world as one, without a sense of duality. It arises in the thoughtless state of heightened consciousness.

This is the teaching of the spiritual masters, such as Shankara, Ramana , J. Krishnamurti and Nisargadatta as well.

It is also an experience, and not something to be philosophised or conceptualised upon incessantly , which , as I mentioned in a previous post, will be a life in vain.


You seem to have synthesised some vaguely understood ideas of Brahman or the non-dual state with scientific phenomena to interpret Advaita.

This is a big mistake, in my opinion, and you even hold the danger of misleading others as well , who may not be quite knowledgeable about this fact , and incurring bad karma in the process.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"It is unfortunate that "Even today, there are many lower caste hindus who are barred from entering temples in certain areas due to caste discrimination."

Actually you asked 'What is unfortunate?' and I gave you my view that it is unfortunate, should not be like this. Actually when I visited Jagannatha Puri, I did not even enter the temple. I did enjoy 'sondesh' 'mishti' and the sea face.

 

[Ravi500]

Actually you asked 'What is unfortunate?' and I gave you my view that it is unfortunate, should not be like this.

Okay. I understand and appreciate your sentiment as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@ Ravi: I am posting this in a hurry because I want to reply to your long post. At the end, you would see a mention of a verse from my grandfather's smriti about education for the dalits. I have not been able to find the book just now. I will post it later. Please be kind enough to have a look at it.

"Finally 200 million dalits suffering discrimination in a so-called progressive nation like India , is not a nice sight.": If the dalits are suffering, it is because they are not choosing the right people as their representatives. Only the creamy layer is harvesting the benefits of the facilities provided by the Indian Constitution. Many such dalit representatives all over India have become multi-millionnaires. Mayawati, Paswan, Madhu Koda, and Ajit Jogi are examples in North India.

"Similarly you should have the intellectual honesty to say also that Hinduism is 'barely progressive'.": Well, you mentioned the BhagawaGita verse which says that one should not see a difference between a noble learned brahmin, a cow, a she-elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater. You mentioned how Sankara fell down before a hunter carrying the carcass of a deer. Hinduism tells me not to see any difference between Gods and Goddesses, humans, animals, vegetation, and even the non-living objects. What more progressiveness do you require? If there is still injustice, you should blame it on other factors.

"I know of dalits who have converted to christianity and islam who have no issues whatsover in their new community." If they are satisfied with that, we have no problems with that. Indian Constitution gives them the right to choose their religion.

"The caste system stems from the smritis, which is man-made ( and made by the brahmins ) and dissoluble with suitable time and circumstances. However this was not done properly in time, and the dalits and lower castes are even now suffering for it.": The Aryans had their four-fold division of society. Castes are indigenous social divisions. Later these two were compounded. But nowhere in Hinduism, injustice to anyone is approved (except perhaps in the interpolated verses in Manusmriti and other such books).

"The shrutis also maintain that the smritis should be changed in time . This has not taken place in hinduism.": :lol: It happens. My grandfather's smriti is an example of that (Vishweshwara Smriti - 1947). You can read the excerpts here Readings from a 20th Century Hindu Law Book (Smriti) - FRDB. Unfortunately, Religious Forums did not allow me to post it here. He wrote this on education for dalits: (will post it later)

 

[Ravi500]

"Finally 200 million dalits suffering discrimination in a so-called progressive nation like India , is not a nice sight.": If the dalits are suffering, it is because they are not choosing the right people as their representatives. Only the creamy layer is harvesting the benefits of the facilities provided by the Indian Constitution. Many such dalit representatives all over India have become multi-millionnaires. Mayawati, Paswan, Madhu Koda, and Ajit Jogi are examples in North India.

I am talking about the facts of their being discriminated by the upper castes in terms of temple accession and so on. I presented the statistics on the crimes inflicted on the dalits as well.


Every 18 minutes:

A crime is committed against a Dalit

Every day:

3 Dalit women are raped
2 Dalits are murdered & 2 Dalits Houses are burnt in India
11 Dalits are beaten


This kind of casteist divisions, which is a phenomenon of the dualistic mindset, only tends to intensify the ego and lead to violence and so on.


As you stated other castes are also involved, but it is still a blot and wrong ; being pushed around for being a dalit by other hindus.

"Similarly you should have the intellectual honesty to say also that Hinduism is 'barely progressive'.": Well, you mentioned the BhagawaGita verse which says that one should not see a difference between a noble learned brahmin, a cow, a she-elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater. You mentioned how Sankara fell down before a hunter carrying the carcass of a deer. Hinduism tells me not to see any difference between Gods and Goddesses, humans, animals, vegetation, and even the non-living objects. What more progressiveness do you require? If there is still injustice, you should blame it on other factors.

There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.

You can extoll advaita a lot, and at the same time refuse to give water to a thirsty dalit on the grounds that you will be impure, which is happening in India now as well in rural areas.

The poor dalit is not interested in whether the scriptures are compassionate or not. He is only interested in knowing whether the people around him are compassionate or not.

I would like to state an incident which happened in a rural area just a few years back.

An untouchable child was walking along a road when a bull attacked him. When people rushed to save him, some idiot shouted loud that the child was untouchable and touching him will make them impure. The people who came to help the child shied back, and sad to say, the child was gored by the bull and killed.

This is the kind of nonsense that is happening in India even now.

The Aryans had their four-fold division of society. Castes are indigenous social divisions. Later these two were compounded. But nowhere in Hinduism, injustice to anyone is approved (except perhaps in the interpolated verses in Manusmriti and other such books).

The ancient Aryan sages had no four-fold division of society. Many of the sages were farmers and involved in small skilled work.

This later on evolved into the caste system through smriti created by the brahmins or descendants of the sages ( which is manmade and dissoluble).

In the times of Buddha and Mahavira, they called for the end to the caste system and approach a society similar to that of a modern democratic society. This was done by the teachings of equality and liberty. The opposition of the brahmins stopped this natural progression of society, expelled Buddhism from India. The fragile decadent and regressive society, naturally became a victim to foreign invasions of other nations who were more progressive in their social outlook.

And this continued, till the Buddhist Ambedkar, created the constitution based on liberty , fraternity and equality.

Ambedkar brought to a conclusion , the socially reformist attempts of Buddha with respect to Indian society.

As Ambedkar himself stated, " "Let no one however say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha. I found that his teaching was democratic to the core".

"The shrutis also maintain that the smritis should be changed in time . This has not taken place in hinduism.": :lol: It happens. My grandfather's smriti is an example of that (Vishweshwara Smriti - 1947). You can read the excerpts here Readings from a 20th Century Hindu Law Book (Smriti) - FRDB. Unfortunately, Religious Forums did not allow me to post it here. He wrote this on education for dalits: (will post it later)

I read the excerpts and did not find any smriti change. It was very vague really, and seem to cover other subjects.

The smritis should have changed during the times of Buddha and Mahavira or afterwards.

The smriti in a practical sense, was actually finally changed by Ambedkar himself.

It did not change at the right time, which lead to the regression of Indian society, and laying a divided society vulnerable to foreign invasions by even small armies, and its subsequent degradation, exploitation and poverty.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"How does atheism and Advaita blend! Issue is contradictory. How can you say that you are an atheist and yet a Hindu; and at the same time concerned about the sects of a religion you have rejected.":
Atheism and advaita, as also science, blend extremely well. Yes, I am an atheist and an advaitist Hindu. It takes some time to understand my position. Even the other members here could not understand my position in the first instant. I have not rejected Hinduism, because Hinduism allows me to be an atheist. I have problems with Krishnamurthy, but Sankara, Ramana, and Nissargadutta Maharaj are OK for me. Why should non-duality exist just in a state of heightened consciousness. Why not all the time? This is not something which any guru has told me. I find this true on my own thinking. Probably the universe began as a small ball of energy, and all things, galaxies, stars, planets, non-living material, vegetation, animals, humans (who too are a kind of animals) have arisen from it, then why should we not see everything as one? As an atheist, I do not believe in re-birth, or karma extending over many re-births.

"Its relevance in history lies only in the fact that it was used to characterise the sages of excellent character and conduct.":
History is relevant for many things, 1. to get as close to what humans did at any time, 2. as a lesson for our action in future, and not just for the sages. There are no races, no blue blooded people, there have been admixtures at the time. There are only groups of people, tribes. Aryans also were a group of tribes. The Aryans were not universalists. They talked about their wins and downfall of their enemies. They prayed to their Gods for it. Yes, the word 'Arya' was used in the sense of a good, respectable, elder person later. Even 'Krnvanto vishvam Arya' (RV 9.63.5) verse is like this:

इन्द्रं वर्धन्तो अप्तुरः कर्ण्वन्तो विश्वमार्यम |
अपघ्नन्तो अराव्णः ||
Indram vardhanto apturah krnvanto vishvamaryam |
apaghnanto aravnah ||
(Performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra's strength,
Driving away the godless ones.)

(So, you are an Arya Samaji, that is why you are talking about castes)

"The Greeks, Jews, Turks , Huns, Kushans and many other invaders have made their genetic imprint in India.":
Sure the others, of course, came to India, but I do not know why you are including jews in the list without much historical proof. They were such insignificant group of people in history, battered by the Egyptians, the Persians, and then the Muslims.

"Again, when you reject divinity, how can you accept the idea of Brahman then, with all the gods and goddesses."
Yes, I reject divinity but I have not rejected Hinduism. If my people fight over whether Vishnu is greater or Shiva, then it pains me, it weakens me. Any inter-sectoral confrontation in Hinduism weakens me, and I try to remove it by asking the people not to indulge in such things.

"Brahman is really a state of consciousness":
Brahman is not a state of consciousness, it is a physical reality. But as Sankara said there are two realities, 'absolute' (Parmarthika') and pragmatic, practical ('Vyavaharika'). Though everything is the same in 'absolute' reality, it is not in the 'pragmatic' reality. And we cannot ignore any of the two. So, in 'pragmatic' reality there are India, Pakistan, China, and USA; and Christians and Muslims; and our interests differ.

"and incurring bad karma in the process.":
Kindly do not worry about my 'karmas'. As I said I do not believe in 'karmas' or re-birth (as also in birth, death, creation, heaven or hell - but that is a matter for another topic).

I see that before I can reply you have a longer post for me. OK, I will reply to all your posts, but give me some time to get my breath back. You are hurrying an old man.

 

[Ravi500]

Atheism and advaita, as also science, blend extremely well. Yes, I am an atheist and an advaitist Hindu.It takes some time to understand my position.

Advaita, as per the positions all the masters from Shankara to Krishnamurti is related to consciousness, a heightened conscious state of mind.

I reiterate that there is nothing of science needed in this, as it will be complicating the subject.

It is really an experience.

Even the other members here could not understand my position in the first instant. I have not rejected Hinduism, because Hinduism allows me to be an atheist. I have problems with Krishnamurthy, but Sankara, Ramana, and Nissargadutta Maharaj are OK for me.

Perhaps you should study J.Krishnamurti with concentration. He has some very good books in 'Series of Living' series and Choiceless Awareness and others.

Make a good study of it, and you will understand the true meaning of Advaita , which is entirely divorced from any scientific interpretations of it which you have made.

Why should non-duality exist just in a state of heightened consciousness.Why not all the time?

It is your perception that is important.

This is not something which any guru has told me. I find this true on my own thinking.

Thoughts are the problem, because they obstruct the no-mind which is necessary for the perception of the non-dual state.

Probably the universe began as a small ball of energy, and all things, galaxies, stars, planets, non-living material, vegetation, animals, humans (who too are a kind of animals) have arisen from it, then why should we not see everything as one?

It is all intellectually understood to be all energy , and this is just limited to the intellect and thoughts. Not your own perception. It is your perception and not intellectual understanding that is important in advaita.

As Ramana, whom you state to be OK for you has stated, "Thoughts alone constitute the mind; and for all thoughts the base or source is the “I” thought. "

"If the mind remains in the Heart, the 'I' or the ego which is the source of all thoughts will go, and the Self, the Real, Eternal 'I' alone will shine. Where there is not the slightest trace of the ego, there is the Self."

History is relevant for many things, 1. to get as close to what humans did at any time, 2. as a lesson for our action in future, and not just for the sages. There are no races, no blue blooded people, there have been admixtures at the time. There are only groups of people, tribes. Aryans also were a group of tribes. The Aryans were not universalists.

What you are talking about is the metaphors of the ancient rishis who talked about light overcoming darkness and so on.

This is not to be taken in a literal sense, as was done by the european pseudo-scholars who did it.

It is my opinion that the tremondous bad karma they created by distorting the universalist Aryan culture into a race related one, lead to the second world war and all the tremondous suffering and devastation that followed it.

Your own genetically related people, the Jews, were the ones who suffered the most from it.

Also note the fact that the avatar Krishna Himself, is of dark complexion as per scriptures. How would this fit with the race theories of the european pseudo-scholars !!!

Anyone in the world, can be an Arya, and the only qualification needed for this would be an excellent character and conduct.

(So, you are an Arya Samaji, that is why you are talking about castes)

I am not an Arya Samaji, though I respect their efforts to put the term Arya in the right context of being a cultured and civilized person, and not in the racial context.

Arya , I would say also would apply to the one who is in this non-dual state of Advaita.

As per Lord Krishna " The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste). "


The Ramayana describes Rama as: arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah, meaning "Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone."

Rama was an avatar Himself and was in this non-dual state, which enabled him to view everyone as his equals.

Thus Rama can be a personification of the teaching of Krishna I mentioned above, " The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste). "

"The Greeks, Jews, Turks , Huns, Kushans and many other invaders have made their genetic imprint in India.":
Sure the others, of course, came to India, but I do not know why you are including jews in the list without much historical proof. They were such insignificant group of people in history, battered by the Egyptians, the Persians, and then the Muslims.

Because they settled in Kashmir and possibly mizoram in ancient times.

Yes, I reject divinity but I have not rejected Hinduism. If my people fight over whether Vishnu is greater or Shiva, then it pains me, it weakens me. Any inter-sectoral confrontation in Hinduism weakens me, and I try to remove it by asking the people not to indulge in such things.

I appreciate your sentiments. But I think we have gone a lot beyond the stage of proving who is the best god.

Brahman is not a state of consciousness, it is a physical reality.

Brahman is what is meant by the Self.

Thus one should know oneself to be of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss [Sat-Chit-Ananda]. -- Shankaracharya


Brahman is a state of consciousness, where you do not perceive any duality in the physical world. It is an experience.

You cannot interpret advaita according to your own whims and fancies, which is but a trick of the ego.

But as Sankara said there are two realities, 'absolute' (Parmarthika') and pragmatic, practical ('Vyavaharika'). Though everything is the same in 'absolute' reality, it is not in the 'pragmatic' reality. And we cannot ignore any of the two. So, in 'pragmatic' reality there are India, Pakistan, China, and USA; and Christians and Muslims; and our interests differ.

There is only one absolute reality, which is advaita.

The Vyavaharika state, the state of duality, is an illusion. It is the state of the ego, which perceives divisions in the outer world. It is not at all the practical state, as it is but an illusion. If you operate under an illusion , you are bound to make errors , just as a man in fog will miss the route to his house.

I don't think Shankara have mentioned Vyavaharika state as 'practical' state , which would be contrary to his teachings. It is but the state of illusion, the blind state.

But the jiva [living being] is endowed with ego and his knowledge is limited, whereas Ishwar is without ego and is omniscient. -- Shankaracharya

And we cannot ignore any of the two.

First attain the state of Advaita, then you can worry about the other state.

So, in 'pragmatic' reality there are India, Pakistan, China, and USA; and Christians and Muslims; and our interests differ.

Oh, so , in pragmatic reality there are India, Pakistan, China, and USA; and Christians and Muslims; and our interests differ !!!

This is where the whole issue lies. :no:

Aryans and jews are enemies. Jews and muslims are enemies. Americans and Russians are enemies.Catholics and protestants are enemies. Shias and Sunnis are enemies. Whites and blacks are enemies. Chinese and Japanese are enemies..... and so ad infinitium. :bonk:


Here is a statement by J.Krishnamurti to put things in context...

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”


This is where I believe, the greatest relevance of practical advaita lies.

Kindly do not worry about my 'karmas'. As I said I do not believe in 'karmas' or re-birth (as also in birth, death, creation, heaven or hell - but that is a matter for another topic).

I will not worry about your karmas, all right. But I will have to worry about the karmas of those who are truly interested in studying advaita, and sadly gets distorted ideas from yourself and other similar likes.

The precise understanding of Advaita, as far as I am concerned, is very important. It requires experential understanding and not just intellectual understanding alone.

Intellectual understanding is like a blind man learning what an elephant is from other people with normal sight. You don't see it for yourself.

And you might mislead others saying it is this or that, something like chinese checkers.

I see that before I can reply you have a longer post for me. OK, I will reply to all your posts, but give me some time to get my breath back. You are hurrying an old man.

Sure, take your time.

I would be happy if you can get the non-dual state yourself, so that you will be able to understand things precisely. I wish you well, my brother.

 

[punkdbass]

It won't let me frubal your post Aup, but I have a few comments for you to think about.

As an atheist, I do not believe in re-birth, or karma extending over many re-births.

To clarify, there is a distinct difference between the conventional definitions of "rebirth" as compared to "reincarnation." Hindus tend to believe in the later, while Buddhists tend to believe in the former. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you do not believe in reincarnation, but I do not think you should put up such strict resistance to the idea of "Buddhist rebirth" - which by the way, is a concept that I think can have it's place within Hinduism as a unique way of interpreting reincarnation. I don't really believe in reincarnation in the literal, conventional sense of it's meaning, but I am very open to the Buddhist notion of rebirth (again, I don't think what I'm saying here is outside of the bounds of the Hindu DIR, I think the Buddhist notion of rebirth can have it's counterpart in Hinduism as a unique interpretation of reincarnation... plus Buddha was viewed as an avatara of Lord Vishnu anyways). But I must admit, I don't really understand the Buddhist notion of rebirth completely yet, but I'm very open to the idea. I think you might like it actually Aup. Basically, from my limited understanding of the idea, Buddhist "rebirth" is the middle path between complete annhilation and eternalism - the 2 extreme views of "life after death." When you die, your entire "being" or "existence" does not utterly, completely, 100% become annhilated... it's "force" has a definite impact on what's to come - be it through "karma" or physical processes, or the love you've shared. Remember, in absolute Reality, there is no "time," for time is relative, so the "life you've lived" is just as much a part of the "Eternal Now" as society 1000 years from now will be. Anyhow, I created a thread asking about Buddhist rebirth(I was a lot more confused on the topic than I am now) that you can check out here, I'm pretty sure you posted in the thread actually lol. I guess the point I'd like to make here, is that given the 2 "extreme" views of "life after death - eternalism and complete annhilation, I encourage you to keep an open mind to a middle option - perhaps this is redundant and you already believe in a middle option.

Yes, I reject divinity but I have not rejected Hinduism.

I do not understand what it means to reject "divinity." Divinity is just a word, it means whatever conventional society wants it to mean. Perhaps you disagree with the conventional personal Creator God aspect of "divinity," cool same here then although I'm more agnostic than atheist on the subject. But I encourage you to ponder the following question: how is Reality anything less than divine? Is not "divine" one of the best poetic words we can use to describe what is essentially infinite, completely open and free, and wholly embracing - Reality itself? If True Reality is completely free of any limiting mental constructs, attachments, free of the mental boxes we try to place it in... then doesn't that mean Reality is essentially infinite and free? Brahman(Reality) is infinite. Infinitely free, infinitely open, infinitely embracing of ever moment... infinitely spontaneous (quantum mechanics can only hint at this level of pure spontaneity!). Why "reject" calling Reality divine? How could Reality be anything less than divine?

I hope I opened your mind a little while reading this, because not going to lie, I sort of blew my own mind while typing this haha

Namaste

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh, Fruballs! I don't play with them. The best example for Buddhist rebirth was given perhaps by Crossfire that it could be taken as a stone rolling down a slope and it hits another stone, makes it roll but itself, it stops.The force or you can say the karmas are transferred to the next stone. Since 'self' does not survive, so what happens after death in Buddhism should not worry anyone. That is a lacuna in Buddhism. In Hinduism the mechanism is justifiable. Hindu rebirth or reincarnation is straight forward. Punishment for evil deeds (hell), rewards for good deeds (heaven) for part of the karmas, and return of the soul to world in any one form to better or worsen the record. A few with no evil deeds need not return. So the Buddhist scheme does not work for me.

Most Hindus and Ravi would have understood the meaning of 'divinity' (Gods and goddesses or Brahman). Now my Brahman is not a Super Soul. It is just physical energy. How can I make energy divine? My views differ with most Hindus. The divinity scheme does not work for me. Among Hindus it is not just a creator God. There is a sustainer God and a God of dissolution also, besides a whole lot of other divinities. Reality is aweful, magnificient, but how can it be divine (for people who do not accept existence of Gods and Goddesses? I do not know Brahman or energy that well to comment in detail about it.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupmanyav ji :namaste

The best example for Buddhist rebirth was given perhaps by Crossfire that it could be taken as a stone rolling down a slope and it hits another stone, makes it roll but itself, it stops.The force or you can say the karmas are transferred to the next stone. Since 'self' does not survive, so what happens after death in Buddhism should not worry anyone.

I hate to tell you this , but there are many schools of Buddhist thought , and that some Buddhists go to great lengths to prepair them selves for the process of death accknowledging the process of rebirth as a part of the progressive path towards liberation .

there are too many broad sweeping generalisations going on here at the moment .

as far as I was aware the name of this site is Religious EDUCATION Forum but it seems to be morphing into a Socio- Political chit chat Forum , ....with a sub section for dissinformation !!!

In Hinduism the mechanism is justifiable. Hindu rebirth or reincarnation is straight forward. Punishment for evil deeds (hell), rewards for good deeds (heaven) for part of the karmas, and return of the soul to world in any one form to better or worsen the record. A few with no evil deeds need not return. So the Buddhist scheme does not work for me.

Heaven and Hell ? .....isnt that some what of a Christianised veiw if Hindu cosmology ???
a devout Hindu goes to the Loka of his beloved lord and the reason he goes to his lords Loka (Realm or world )is because he places his lord above himself realising that supreme to be the absolute reality , and himself in human form to be a temporarily conditioned being (it is a misstranslation to call a loka heaven , as there are countless lokas, which interestingly enough exist in Buddhism as well )

let me please explain this carefully as it is very important .....
Karma is action , every action has a reaction so regardless of whether the action is good or bad it generates a reaction which must bear fruit , the fruits of our actions manifest as fortunate or unfortunate births ...the only action which causes us to escape the cycle of birth and death is the act of selfless devotion, therefore one who wholeheartedly devotes himself to the service of the lord and to the service of others upon meating with death gains liberation , those devoted to the formless Brahman merge with Brahman , those who worship radha Krsna go to Goloka Vrindarvan , a Ram bhakta to Saket , a siva to the abode of shiv ji in Viakuntha .....and so on each having their respective realms ....


Vaikuntha is not a reward for good deeds but the product of Nishkam Karma; selfless devotion , .....the Bhagavad gita says ....

The yogīs, abandoning attachment, act with body, mind, intelligence and even with the senses, only for the purpose of purification.

The steadily devoted soul attains unadulterated peace because he offers the result of all activities to Me; whereas a person who is not in union with the Divine, who is greedy for the fruits of his labor, becomes entangled. .... ch 5 ...V 11-12


even if you have lost your shraddhA, you are proud of your culture please preserve it's wisdom intact .

 

[punkdbass]

Oh, Fruballs! I don't play with them. The best example for Buddhist rebirth was given perhaps by Crossfire that it could be taken as a stone rolling down a slope and it hits another stone, makes it roll but itself, it stops.The force or you can say the karmas are transferred to the next stone. Since 'self' does not survive, so what happens after death in Buddhism should not worry anyone. That is a lacuna in Buddhism. In Hinduism the mechanism is justifiable. Hindu rebirth or reincarnation is straight forward. Punishment for evil deeds (hell), rewards for good deeds (heaven) for part of the karmas, and return of the soul to world in any one form to better or worsen the record. A few with no evil deeds need not return. So the Buddhist scheme does not work for me.

Hmm I'm confused. You admit that you understand Buddhist rebirth but say it does not work for you, why exactly does it not work for you? (this is not a rhetorical question, I'm trying to understand your problem with Buddhist rebirth). I know you reject the "Hindu" idea of rebirth or reincarnation correct?

Most Hindus and Ravi would have understood the meaning of 'divinity' (Gods and goddesses or Brahman). Now my Brahman is not a Super Soul. It is just physical energy. How can I make energy divine? My views differ with most Hindus. The divinity scheme does not work for me. Among Hindus it is not just a creator God. There is a sustainer God and a God of dissolution also, besides a whole lot of other divinities. Reality is aweful, magnificient, but how can it be divine (for people who do not accept existence of Gods and Goddesses? I do not know Brahman or energy that well to comment in detail about it.

I guess your statement answers my question. But to clarify: what exactly is "physical energy?" And wouldn't you admit that Brahman is void of the mental concept of "physical energy"?

@ratikala - your thoughts about people going to different realms associated with their deity, after death, is interesting to me, thanks for sharing. But for me personally, such ideas feel too dogmatic, too speculative and hence I do not hold any strong opinions on them yet. But my mind is open. I view the existence of Deities in a similar manner - interesting, but too dogmatic/speculative for me to form a conviction.