In Addition to: "Shaktism, only for Siddhis"; Westernization of Hinduism; Alienation; TANTRA

[ratikala]

It would be tough proving it for Sunny Deol. But for Keanu Reeves ? That's easy:

[youtube]nEubt6HpGhs[/youtube]​

dont worry Prabhu ji I beleive you Keanu Reeves is imortal , but I have to tell you he is also an alien so that proves another theory , ....

and I still havent had time to watch that film

is that beard for real ???

P.S. .....and by the way you wont find any photos of my wedding on the internet , Cameras wernt invented then ... HeeeHee

 

[Poeticus]

and I still havent had time to watch that film

is that beard for real ???

Yes, Ratiben, Sunnybhai's beard is most definitely for real. Very dashing, isn't it ?

P.S. .....and by the way you wont find any photos of my wedding on the internet , Cameras wernt invented then ... HeeeHee

Aww. Does that mean that Didi is ancient as well ? Ancient like Keanu and Sunny ? ... *I duck as Ratiben throws a chair and a lamp my way* ...

 

[Poeticus]

@Nick-ji

Nick-ji, the following is regarding your most recent article: Kurukshetra « Videshi Sutra. First and foremost, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to provide an extensive arrangement of the Kurushetra War and the make up of the armies present, more specifically that of the Kaurava-s and the Pandava-s. For those that wish to see a visual of what it is that I am discussing, the following is it:

Nick, in regards to strictly a socio-cultural perspective being applied to the make-up of this map, would it be safe to state that it was a Yadava & Allies victory and the defeat of the yajna-centric Kaurava-s ? (And for those that know me well enough, notice how Krishna's Yadava lands are smack-dab in the cough cough Gujarat cough cough ? )

 

[Aupmanyav]

Poeticus, you are cough cough reiterating the Indologists' view that there was a cough cough 'yajna-centric' cough cough culture and one which was cough cough not.

 

[raater_aloo]

There are instances in the Mahabharata where the Gita discourse is mentioned. An example would be the Anu Gita where Arjun asks Krishna to repeat the instructions Krishna gave him in the Battlefield of Kurukshetra.

Thats right, and dating those sections of the Mahabharata is one of the ways which historians figure out the timeframe in which the Gita was composed.

Plus, Vedantins such as Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Madhusudhana, etc have all accepted that the Gita is part of the Mahabharata and not a separate text. In fact, almost all Vedantins have accepted that. I suppose that all these men were wrong even though they lived at an earlier time?

Thats right. Living earlier doesn't mean they necessarily had more insight into when these things were composed, especially since it was their *faith* that they had all been composed in one sweep, and still lived hundreds if not thousands of years after the events took place, and hundreds of years after the standard recensions were compiled.

 

[Chakra]

Thats right, and dating those sections of the Mahabharata is one of the ways which historians figure out the timeframe in which the Gita was composed.

Dating? What do you mean? Are you talking about when the Gita took place in relation to the rest of the story or when the Gita was written in relation to when the Mahabharata was written?

Thats right. Living earlier doesn't mean they necessarily had more insight into when these things were composed, especially since it was their *faith* that they had all been composed in one sweep, and still lived hundreds if not thousands of years after the events took place, and hundreds of years after the standard recensions were compiled.

Yes, of course. Because they were religious, their opinions don't matter at all and only the secular scholars have a say on a text that was studied by them for years. Gotcha.

Regards

 

[Poeticus]

Poeticus, you are cough cough reiterating the Indologists' view that there was a cough cough 'yajna-centric' cough cough culture and one which was cough cough not.

Oh, come on, Aup-dada ! Shouldn't this be your forte ? What does that large tome you have say ? That glorious tome by the Illustrious Tilak Maharaj ?

 

[raater_aloo]

Dating? What do you mean? Are you talking about when the Gita took place in relation to the rest of the story or when the Gita was written in relation to when the Mahabharata was written?

When they were respectively written. If we can date a later portion of the Mahabharata which mentions the Gita, we know it was written before then.

Yes, of course. Because they were religious, their opinions don't matter at all and only the secular scholars have a say on a text that was studied by them for years. Gotcha.

Didn't say that, but thanks for strawmanning me. I think emic and etic approaches are both required for a proper understanding. One of the shortfalls of the emic accounts is that they tend to uncritically accept things which are held to be true by tradition, or which are religiously sacrosanct. This is one such instance of that.

 

[raater_aloo]

@Nick-ji

Nick-ji, the following is regarding your most recent article: [link which I'm not allowed to post as raater-aloo since I have below 15 posts still] First and foremost, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to provide an extensive arrangement of the Kurushetra War and the make up of the armies present, more specifically that of the Kaurava-s and the Pandava-s.

Nick, in regards to strictly a socio-cultural perspective being applied to the make-up of this map, would it be safe to state that it was a Yadava & Allies victory and the defeat of the yajna-centric Kaurava-s ? (And for those that know me well enough, notice how Krishna's Yadava lands are smack-dab in the cough cough Gujarat cough cough ? )

Hahahah so are you scion of the Yadava clan? Yes I'd agree more or less that it was a Yadava and allied victory against the Yajna-centric Kauravas. By the way, this isn't to say that the Kaurava royalty themselves were always holding yajnas. Its notable that Duryodhana doesn't really have many Brahmins in his court, and seems to be something of an atheist or an agnostic or a non-theist. He probably adhered to some sort of archaic form of Kshatriay Dharma in which worldly conquest was the paramount virtue. But the type of religion practiced in the Kaurava territories seems to be more inclined towards rote ritual, contrary to the religion which Krishna was spreading in the central territories and Gujarat. Isn't it also interesting that while the Yadavas are centered towards the west in Gujarat, they originally came from the East? So it really is an instance of the Eastern part of the subcontinent (except those which hadn't yet been sanskritized, like Bengal) developing new cultural innovations and replacing the old, obsolete, perhaps decadent way of life of the West.

Also I was shocked that nobody had made this map before. I had been searching for it online since I was like 14, but finally I just had to make it.

 

[raater_aloo]

Ratikala Im responding to you in the reverse order i which you posted so that I can hit the 15 post limit which will allow me to post links.

I am not nececarily being ageist

When you say "I would stand by my remark in that it is unwise for a man of your age to criticise a senior," yes, that is the definition of ageism. Or can you explain how it is not?

like you I am pointing out facts , ....it just so happens that I have been on this planet longer than you , and I have spent that time wisely rather than playing ludo !

I don't see much evidence of all the time you spent wisely studying Hinduism and Indian history, because you really aren't pointing out very many facts.

I really don't like to pull rank, but when you constantly assert that you are more qualified to talk about this because of your age, I am forced to. Aside from all the childhood interest and exposure through Gurukulam, I studied this stuff full time in undergrad, and am now a graduate program where I do the same (though joyfully I'm on vacation right now so I have time to fool around on forums in between visits to the archive, and the historical sites here in Kolkata). How about you? How long have you spent studying in Ashrams or Gurukuls and under which Gurus? How many degrees do you have, and in what subjects? How many primary and secondary texts have you read? Which archives and libraries have you conducted research in? How many languages can you read? Simply being older doesn't mean you have more knowledge.

Anyway, you don't seem to have responded to some of my points. For instance, one of the major points of contention is that the Gita and Vaishnavism have increased in popularity since colonialism, and tantra has decreased, and it was the former who collaborated with the British. I put forth some statistics and evidence towards that but received no refutation or contestation. Obviously you don't have to respond to that if you don't want, but I'm just flagging the fact that it hasn't been answered.

jai jai all glories to Ramanujacharia , sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu , Valabachariya and many many others ....

Refusal to engage when conclusively disproven, and a resort to faith. This interaction is the best summary of your entire mode of discussion in this thread.

I possibly have the book somewhere if I can fint any reference I will post it ....

Thanks! I'd really appreciate that.

I think that many schools accept that it was transmited oraly , and that the point when it was actualy commited to written form may well have come at a later point

You are right about the oral transmission, but it doesn't really pertain to the dating of the written form because language is a relatively modern form of Sanskrit, and in oral transmission the language doesn't get "updated," it is repeated verbatim unless an interpolation is introduced. So the language of the Gita is probably the exact language in which it was composed, barring any interpolations. This is why the Vedas, which were orally transmitted, are in a much older form of Sanskrit than the Mahabharata, which was also orally transmitted. Also, even if the Gita was composed but not written earlier than we think, we would expect to see mention of it in other older texts which were orally transmitted, as the Vedas are mentioned in the Mahabharata at a point when neither was put into writing.

I have studied many Gita transliterations and yes they differ but the essence is the same when sincerely studied ,

Sure, all the translations communicate the general idea, but they differ drastically in respect to the details, the cosmology, and the metaphysics. Many many western versions which I have read insert Christian cosmology, metaphysics, and teleology into the text. The details matter.

 

[raater_aloo]

please reserve your LOL's for your contemporaries .

…lol, I'll lol wherever I please! I'm a free soul.

there is little point in making any criticism if you are not prepaired to listen and if you think that at your young age that you are qualified ''Address'' others ....

I'm listening and responding with facts, statistics, and evidence. You are the one who is refusing to engage, and continue to make assertions without backing them up. As for my age, well I could turn that around and say. "You are too old and possibly senile to address young people with virile healthy brains." But thats just ageism. Address the facts, don't try and discredit the person presenting them.

I am sorry , .. but I do not and will not even entertain the thought of proving the existance of Sri Bhagavan or of the words spoken at Kurukshetra to a non theist as we do not have the same understanding ...if someone wants proof of Sri Krsnas existance then surrender is a nececary requirement .

Faith based refusal to engage with rational inquiry. What if I told you that an supernatural spaghetti being was born 10,000 years ago, but I wouldn't prove it to you and the only way you could know about him would be to surrender to him? How would you treat this kind of claim?

if you have no other argument to fall back on ? ....then please refer to the mythical Spagetti monster by his full name .....otherwise people will wonder what on earth you are talking about ....

Sri Spagetti Mahapastadeva.

if it hasent yealded results just keep praying , ....

Likewise, if praying to Sri Spagetti Mahapastadeva doesn't work the first time, just keep trying.

now if you wish to bring Buddha in to this I think you will find that in truth Buddha simply refrained from being drawn on the subject of god .

Not true. Buddha and Buddhist texts explicitly reject God on numerous occasions. The following link compiles some of those instances.

The Buddha EXPLICITLY Rejected God (Proof) - NewBuddhist

when you look in your heart and realise the true nature of the self , the age of books becomes utterly irrelevant .

I sort of agree with you actually. A person experiencing a higher state of consciousness probably won't care about the age of books. But that doesn't mean that they know the age of books as a consequence of looking into their heart, which is your original claim.

if all you search for is material evidence then you are some what limmited to maya

Like many many Hindus throughout history, I reject mayavada, or at least the standard interpretation of it. The material universe is real, divine, and I intend to know it by all the means available.

Wait, let me get this straight. You don't believe that anglicization occured----

sure some Anglicisation occured but I am not happy with the extent to which you posit it occured ....

Then you should be presenting evidence which indicates that I am wrong about the extent of Anglicization, not just acting offended and asserting the opposite without backing it up.

an apradha is an apradha often they are commited in ignorance , but still an apradha is an apradha , ....

This is the Hindu equivalent of saying "well, what you are saying is blasphemy or heresy, so its wrong."

[Traditional Hinduism] refers to the forms of Hinduism which existed before colonialism, or which are not impacted very heavily by colonialism. It still persists in large parts of rural India.

please let us find a better defintition than this ?

….No. That is the subject of the essay when I say "traditional Hinduism." If you don't like that term call it anything else you want. Call it "Smorglebop" for all I care, but Hinduism without, or with minimal colonial influence is the subject I'm referring to.

interestingly enough if one read Ghandi jis writings on the Gita , one realises that he has not misses its poigniency .

I agree. I don't think that being influenced by the English made him less poignant. Again, there is the assumption here that English influence is inherently bad, and if it existed would lead to a dulling in Gandhi's thought.

then please listen when I speak to you as a mother ,you are young and much of what you say comes across as some what arogant , this is what westernisation has done to you

Much of what you say comes across as arrogant as well. Especially when you talk down to me because of my age, and say that you have the truth and I'd see it except I'm too ignorant and arrogant, and if only I had as much faith as you and prayed as hard as you I'd realize the truth. Thats an incredibly arrogant attitude, made even more grating by this front of false humility.

..you think it has affected Hinduism then you are right , but please do not blame the ''Britishers '' it seams that hindus of today are increasingly giving up the finer qualities of respect and humility for the ugly traits of the west without realising what they are loosing .

As a side note, I don't know why you seem to be fixated on this "britishers" term. Its a pretty common term in North American and Indian english. You seem to live in the UK where the term is considered archaic. You can look it up in an online dictionary though if you don't believe me.

But yeah I completely agree that it isn't the Britishers who are wholly to blame. Many Hindus uncritically abandoned their logical, rational, naturalistic traditions in favor of the Neo-Hinduism which uses faith as a crutch to support false revisionist history, and that is a shame.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nick, in regards to strictly a socio-cultural perspective being applied to the make-up of this map, would it be safe to state that it was a Yadava & Allies victory and the defeat of the yajna-centric Kaurava-s ? (And for those that know me well enough, notice how Krishna's Yadava lands are smack-dab in the cough cough Gujarat cough cough ? )

Poeticus, you are cough cough reiterating the Indologists' view that there was a cough cough 'yajna-centric' cough cough culture and one which was cough cough not.

However, I do not think this represents the truth. I do not think the Pandyas and Cholas would have any interest in a war that was being fought far in North India. Secondly, on what basis should we consider Kauravas and Pandavas to be 'yajna-centric' or not. Is it not a (mythological) fact that Pandavas conducted an Ashwamedha yajna during their reign?

That glorious tome by the Illustrious Tilak Maharaj ?

The two books of Tilak (Orion and Arctic Home In Vedas)do not touch Mahabharata war except tangentially. I have not read his 'Gita Rahasya' which may have something on it, but it is a big tome. I have to collect enough strength to begin on it (However, I saw it on internet).

.. as the Vedas are mentioned in the Mahabharata at a point when neither was put into writing.

That has to be. Are not Vedas eternal? Avataras and Smritis happen in each Manavantara and Kalpa.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. As for my age, well I could turn that around and say. "You are too old and possibly senile to address young people with virile healthy brains." But thats just ageism. Address the facts, don't try and discredit the person presenting them.

No, Raater_Aloo. If you are a Hindu, you never do that. Perhaps it is because you are studying in US (or wherever, I do not know). What about 'samskaras'?

"Satyam Vada, Priyam Vada, Mā Vada Satyampariyam".

Not true. Buddha and Buddhist texts explicitly reject God on numerous occasions.

That is what the Buddhists say. For Hindus, he is the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Did not Mara and Brahma come to Lord Buddha? Kindly notice that your link is from NewBuddhist.

I reject mayavada, or at least the standard interpretation of it. The material universe is real, divine, and I intend to know it by all the means available.

How real, Raater_Aloo? Tell me what happens when you prick your finger with a needle. Read some science.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Its notable that Duryodhana doesn't really have many Brahmins in his court, and seems to be something of an atheist or an agnostic or a non-theist. He probably adhered to some sort of archaic form of Kshatriay Dharma in which worldly conquest was the paramount virtue. But the type of religion practiced in the Kaurava territories seems to be more inclined towards rote ritual, contrary to the religion which Krishna was spreading in the central territories and Gujarat. Isn't it also interesting that while the Yadavas are centered towards the west in Gujarat, they originally came from the East? So it really is an instance of the Eastern part of the subcontinent (except those which hadn't yet been sanskritized, like Bengal) developing new cultural innovations and replacing the old, obsolete, perhaps decadent way of life of the West.

this is where the study of a culture by history and evidence alone will only get you so far , ....your commentas on Duryodhana are mere assumptions and based upon a one sided veiw , where as one who reads the Mahabarata understands Duryodhana to be a self centered fool who has no understanding of his own Dharma ...he practiced nothing other than greed and avarice , his hunger for power and supremacy blinded him even to repeated warnings of his own tutor Bhishma and even of Krsna , ...it was Duryodhana who foolishly laughed in the face of Krsna and called him nothing but a cow heard boy .....

 

[raater_aloo]

this is where the study of a culture by history and evidence alone will only get you so far , ....your commentas on Duryodhana are mere assumptions and based upon a one sided veiw , where as one who reads the Mahabarata understands Duryodhana to be a self centered fool who has no understanding of his own Dharma ...he practiced nothing other than greed and avarice , his hunger for power and supremacy blinded him even to repeated warnings of his own tutor Bhishma and even of Krsna , ...it was Duryodhana who foolishly laughed in the face of Krsna and called him nothing but a cow heard boy .....

I've read probably around 80-90% of the total volume of the Mahabharata. Most of the crucial sections in the Purushottama Lal translation which has a very good reputation. Still working on the last 10% Can you say the same?

My comments are not assumptions. Ironically, your assumption that they are assumptions is an assumption. They are based on a study of the text as well as the secondary literature, the Manu Smriti, and other works. They could be incorrect analyses (in which case show me how) but they are not assumed. If you don't believe me look at the citations in the two articles I wrote on Duryodhana:

Playing Duryodhana
Duryodhana II: Hated by the World « Videshi Sutra

You are right in one sense--- that Duryodhdna was greedy, avaricious, power hungry, and rejected Krishna. Do I deny any of this? I simply say that he had his own Dharma to follow-- an archaic warrior morality in which these were not vices. One of the moral lessons of the Mahabharata is that Duryodhana's Dharma is inferior to Krishna's.

 

[raater_aloo]

However, I do not think this represents the truth. I do not think the Pandyas and Cholas would have any interest in a war that was being fought far in North India.

I agree, it probably is not historically accurate, but that is what the text says.

Secondly, on what basis should we consider Kauravas and Pandavas to be 'yajna-centric' or not. Is it not a (mythological) fact that Pandavas conducted an Ashwamedha yajna during their reign?

The basis is the Mahaharata's text, and our knowledge of ancient Indian religious trends. Krishna frequently ridicules those who are more concerned with nitty gritty rules and rituals rather than the broader goals of Dharma. Based on Duryodhana's actions, those of his father, and those of Karna and others in his cohort, it seems like his philosophy matches that conveyed in the oldest texts which describe a warrior's conduct. And historically, after the Mahabharata period, Krishna's system increased in popularity, and the yajna centric Vedic religion as it was practiced a thousand years prior went into decline. So it is only a hypothesis admittedly, and it could be wrong, but there is a basis to think that the Kauravas represented an older version of Hindu society in which ritual was more important and kings didn't have a social-Dharma, and the Pandavas represent a new social order in which a social-Dharma applies to king, and takes precedence over ritualism.

.. as the Vedas are mentioned in the Mahabharata at a point when neither was put into writing.

That has to be. Are not Vedas eternal? Avataras and Smritis happen in each Manavantara and Kalpa.

I don't see how that could be literally true, but you are free to believe it obviously. My point was only that we know the Vedas are older than the Mahabharata in part because the latter mentions the former---- and the fact that both were composed prior to writing is irrelevant to this fact. EDIT: Waaaaaait a minute have you been pulling me leg???

 

[raater_aloo]

No, Raater_Aloo. If you are a Hindu, you never do that.

You are right, I wouldn't actually say that and mean it, because its rude. And I would expect elder people to also not be rude to those younger than them.

That is what the Buddhists say. For Hindus, he is the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Did not Mara and Brahma come to Lord Buddha? Kindly notice that your link is from NewBuddhist.

Yeah I am referring to the Buddha of Buddhism, which most likely more closely resembles the historical Buddha than the one in Hinduism. And even in the Hindu version, Buddha is considered a deceiver of the Asuras because he led them away from belief in God, among other things. And yes, Buddhists do believe in the existence of supernatural entities like Devas and Asuras and Rakshasas, but they think that these are all mortal beings which more or less resemble humans, but with different abilities. They deny Brahman and Ishvara, though not necessarily the Devas.

How real, [is the universe] Raater_Aloo? Tell me what happens when you prick your finger with a needle. Read some science.

It hurts and bleeds? I don't see your point. My bleeding finger is not illusory. Maybe you are being sarcastic and I didn't get the joke?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. your commentas on Duryodhana are mere assumptions and based upon a one sided veiw, where as one who reads the Mahabarata understands Duryodhana to be a self centered fool who has no understanding of his own Dharma ..he practiced nothing other than greed and avarice, his hunger for power and supremacy blinded him even to repeated warnings of his own tutor Bhishma and even of Krsna, ..it was Duryodhana who foolishly laughed in the face of Krsna and called him nothing but a cow heard boy ..

Jai jai, Ratikalaben, don't be so harsh on Duryodhana.

Questions and Answers on Baladeva Tattva | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

Please remember, Hinduism has no Satan.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't see how that could be literally true, but you are free to believe it obviously. My point was only that we know the Vedas are older than the Mahabharata in part because the latter mentions the former---- and the fact that both were composed prior to writing is irrelevant to this fact. EDIT: Waaaaaait a minute have you been pulling me leg???

No, I am not trying to pull anyone's leg. You see, mythologically and religiously, Vedas are eternal. Historically, some parts of Vedas may belong to before the last ice age, more than 18,000 years old - if I make a guess, then it is 'nividas', monosyllabic mantras - Om, hrim, cleem, shannai, swaha, etc. These were the chants that the Aryan fire priests, Atharvans and Angirasas, may have chanted in the long dark cold arctic nights around the fire while sipping bowls of Soma and urging Indra to finish his yearly job of defeating the demons of darkness (Vala, Kuvaya. Vritra, Shambara, etc.) and bring back the sun.

Ramayana, Mahabharata and BhagawadGita belong to post-Panini period, although the stories could be older, as in religious dance-dramas - jatras, padh, pandavani, kathakali, mohini attam, yakshagana, etc. These are just the Sanskrit presentation of the older indigenous stories. Do you think my presentation is reasonable?

 

[Aupmanyav]

And even in the Hindu version, Buddha is considered a deceiver of the Asuras because he led them away from belief in God, among other things.

Oh, that was the canard floated by the karmakandi Brahmins of Gaya, Varanasi, Prayag, and Ganga Sagar, whose livelihood was threatened by the teaching of Buddha.

It hurts and bleeds? I don't see your point. My bleeding finger is not illusory. Maybe you are being sarcastic and I didn't get the joke?

No atom touches any other atom when you prick your finger with a needle. The pain and the bleeding also do not involve any actual contact. What you see is an illusion. The needle, the blood, and you yourself are nothing other than points of energy. The electons travel at the speed of 2,200 kms per second but they can be energised to move with the speed of light.

The electron has no known substructure. Hence, it is defined or assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent. (Wikipedia) You are just a puff/cloud of energy.