Is Hinduism a religion?

[Indian Iconoclast]

[QUOTE="I request, so we can get an idea of which view is more popular, to like the view that you agree with and do not like views that you do not agree with. Popularity, of course, does not prove which view is right, but it does give us an idea which view is more commonly shared on this forum.[/QUOTE]

I who have shunned calling myself a Hindu and have freed my heart and soul from the bondage of collective and congregating religious faiths and culminations therefrom. declare loudly and firmly that to me there (apart from government classifications today and the continuous misquotes of millions by others) IS NO RELIGION IN THE WORLD CALLED HINDUISM and the recently coined stupid word HINDUTVA that is incorrect in Sanskrit using the adjective 'TVA'

The word Hindu has its origins in Arabic Hind or Hindi referring to the river Indus and the people living by it. Some 11th-century Arab historians such as Ibn Khaldun and 11th-century Arab travelers like Ibn Battuta have written the words 'Saif Al Hindi' to mean Indian swords and Ahl Al Hind and Hindu for the Indian people.

Because of their dark skin, the Indians were called Hindu by the people of Iran where the word had become synonymous with the Persian word 'Syah" that means black. The famous lines of Shamsaldeen Hafiz Shirazi need a mention here:

"AGAR AAN TURK I SHIRAZI BADAST AARAD DIL I MA RA

BAKHAL I HINDUWASH BAKHSHAM SAMARQAND O BUKHARA RA"

The couplet in Persian translates as follows, "If that Turkish beauty from Shiraz wishes to pluck my heart by her own hand, I shall willingly bestow the (rich) cities of Samarqand and Bukhara in exchange (being greater in value than my heart) of the black mole (on her cheek). Here the words "Khal e Hindu"
or a black mole conveys the attribute of the dark skins of Indian people in a general sense.

There is neither in Vedic or Upanishadic nor in the Sanskrit epics of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, any mention of the Hindi/Urdu/English word Hindu in any of their texts and/or commentaries.

There is a Sanskrit word 'SANATANA DHARMA' in these texts and commentaries, that means a traditional behaviour and rites being adopted and collectively followed by the Aryans that had invaded India and destroyed the cities and habitats of the Indus Valley Civilization and enslaved its dark skinned natives the Dravidians and termed them Shudras (Outcasts).

But that Sanatana Dharma was a general term for the multi-faith Aryans who as the ancient Greeks and Iranians had their own sets of worshippers of different gods and goddesses and had social disputes amongst them. There were sectarian disputes between the worshippers of Shiva called the Shaiva sect and the worshippers of Vishnu called the Vaishnava sect and there were inter sect clashes and bloodsheds as these sects did not see eye to eye for centuries. The worshipped gods of the Iranians the Assurs were called Assurs or Daityas by the Aryans, in the same manner, the worshipped gods of the Aryans the Devas were termed 'Deo' or demons by the Iranians. Both Iranians and Aryans of India originated in central Asia and both call themselves Aryans.

By the passing of thirty centuries (Read: A. L. Basham - The wonder that was India and Sir Alexander Cunningham - Book of Indian Eras) the belligerence between Aryan sects in India had more or less ended and these sects were unified in a reconciliatory religious behavior and tenets called the aforementioned Sanatana Dharma. The deities of the vanquished and enslaved Dravidians to were gradually adopted and worshipped in Aryan temples, the most noteworthy being the goddess Kali/Kalika/Karumariamman who got to be viewed as another incarnation of the goddess Uma/Durga the consort of Shiva. This was the age when the lores called Puranas were being written in hymns and praise of Shiva and Vishnu and other deities. A Sino-Tibetan and Buddhist female deity called Tara too got recognition and equation with Kali/Kalika and Durga. However, the worshippers of Tara/Kali/Kalika had their own rituals called Vama Marga or the Left Path that differentiated them from the Dakshina Marga, the Right Pathed Sanatana Dharma followers. The Vama Margis followed animal and human sacrifice rituals, eating of beef and meat of sacrificed animals and humans; acts of attaining spiritual bliss and ecstasy in Yogic sex (individual couples or congregational groups) called and termed as Tantra Sadhana or Tantra Vidya/Vama Vidya and partake of ejaculated and collected male sperm and female orgasmically discharged fluid in such sessions of congregational sexual cum spiritual orgies.

The Sanatana Dharma by the time of Sankaracharya had become so diversified and disunited and blended with Buddhist and Jaina customs and rituals that there was no cohesion and unison in them. Every temple or monastery had its own sectarian following called the Sampradaya. Every Guru had his own set of rituals for his following. Sankaracharya as a reformer held countrywide discourses and debates to bring together these Sampradayas into one platform and formed ten different orders of celibate monks called the Sannyasis and the married householder enlightened teachers called the Goswamis (literally cow owners) and five prominent monasteries called the Mathas or Mutts.

Further reforms and reformers like Guru Nanak and Krishna Chaitanya and Kabir gave new shapes and hues to this variant worshipping society of Indian Aryan based and mixed groups.

The Muslim Pathan and Mughal rulers and the British who came to rule India after they called these non-Christian, non-Muslim idol-worshipping or monotheistic Indians as Hindus.

This is why I say that nothing called Hinduism ever existed or exists as a religion and it is India's misfortune that the word remains enshrined in our Constitution and Laws and a new stupid word Hindutva has been coined and adopted by India's extreme right wing politicians and their ignorant following.

 

[sayak83]

[QUOTE="I request, so we can get an idea of which view is more popular, to like the view that you agree with and do not like views that you do not agree with. Popularity, of course, does not prove which view is right, but it does give us an idea which view is more commonly shared on this forum.

I who have shunned calling myself a Hindu and have freed my heart and soul from the bondage of collective and congregating religious faiths and culminations therefrom. declare loudly and firmly that to me there (apart from government classifications today and the continuous misquotes of millions by others) IS NO RELIGION IN THE WORLD CALLED HINDUISM and the recently coined stupid word HINDUTVA that is incorrect in Sanskrit using the adjective 'TVA'

The word Hindu has its origins in Arabic Hind or Hindi referring to the river Indus and the people living by it. Some 11th-century Arab historians such as Ibn Khaldun and 11th-century Arab travelers like Ibn Battuta have written the words 'Saif Al Hindi' to mean Indian swords and Ahl Al Hind and Hindu for the Indian people.

Because of their dark skin, the Indians were called Hindu by the people of Iran where the word had become synonymous with the Persian word 'Syah" that means black. The famous lines of Shamsaldeen Hafiz Shirazi need a mention here:

"AGAR AAN TURK I SHIRAZI BADAST AARAD DIL I MA RA

BAKHAL I HINDUWASH BAKHSHAM SAMARQAND O BUKHARA RA"

The couplet in Persian translates as follows, "If that Turkish beauty from Shiraz wishes to pluck my heart by her own hand, I shall willingly bestow the (rich) cities of Samarqand and Bukhara in exchange (being greater in value than my heart) of the black mole (on her cheek). Here the words "Khal e Hindu"
or a black mole conveys the attribute of the dark skins of Indian people in a general sense.

There is neither in Vedic or Upanishadic nor in the Sanskrit epics of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, any mention of the Hindi/Urdu/English word Hindu in any of their texts and/or commentaries.

There is a Sanskrit word 'SANATANA DHARMA' in these texts and commentaries, that means a traditional behaviour and rites being adopted and collectively followed by the Aryans that had invaded India and destroyed the cities and habitats of the Indus Valley Civilization and enslaved its dark skinned natives the Dravidians and termed them Shudras (Outcasts).

But that Sanatana Dharma was a general term for the multi-faith Aryans who as the ancient Greeks and Iranians had their own sets of worshippers of different gods and goddesses and had social disputes amongst them. There were sectarian disputes between the worshippers of Shiva called the Shaiva sect and the worshippers of Vishnu called the Vaishnava sect and there were inter sect clashes and bloodsheds as these sects did not see eye to eye for centuries. The worshipped gods of the Iranians the Assurs were called Assurs or Daityas by the Aryans, in the same manner, the worshipped gods of the Aryans the Devas were termed 'Deo' or demons by the Iranians. Both Iranians and Aryans of India originated in central Asia and both call themselves Aryans.

By the passing of thirty centuries (Read: A. L. Basham - The wonder that was India and Sir Alexander Cunningham - Book of Indian Eras) the belligerence between Aryan sects in India had more or less ended and these sects were unified in a reconciliatory religious behavior and tenets called the aforementioned Sanatana Dharma. The deities of the vanquished and enslaved Dravidians to were gradually adopted and worshipped in Aryan temples, the most noteworthy being the goddess Kali/Kalika/Karumariamman who got to be viewed as another incarnation of the goddess Uma/Durga the consort of Shiva. This was the age when the lores called Puranas were being written in hymns and praise of Shiva and Vishnu and other deities. A Sino-Tibetan and Buddhist female deity called Tara too got recognition and equation with Kali/Kalika and Durga. However, the worshippers of Tara/Kali/Kalika had their own rituals called Vama Marga or the Left Path that differentiated them from the Dakshina Marga, the Right Pathed Sanatana Dharma followers. The Vama Margis followed animal and human sacrifice rituals, eating of beef and meat of sacrificed animals and humans; acts of attaining spiritual bliss and ecstasy in Yogic sex (individual couples or congregational groups) called and termed as Tantra Sadhana or Tantra Vidya/Vama Vidya and partake of ejaculated and collected male sperm and female orgasmically discharged fluid in such sessions of congregational sexual cum spiritual orgies.

The Sanatana Dharma by the time of Sankaracharya had become so diversified and disunited and blended with Buddhist and Jaina customs and rituals that there was no cohesion and unison in them. Every temple or monastery had its own sectarian following called the Sampradaya. Every Guru had his own set of rituals for his following. Sankaracharya as a reformer held countrywide discourses and debates to bring together these Sampradayas into one platform and formed ten different orders of celibate monks called the Sannyasis and the married householder enlightened teachers called the Goswamis (literally cow owners) and five prominent monasteries called the Mathas or Mutts.

Further reforms and reformers like Guru Nanak and Krishna Chaitanya and Kabir gave new shapes and hues to this variant worshipping society of Indian Aryan based and mixed groups.

The Muslim Pathan and Mughal rulers and the British who came to rule India after they called these non-Christian, non-Muslim idol-worshipping or monotheistic Indians as Hindus.

This is why I say that nothing called Hinduism ever existed or exists as a religion and it is India's misfortune that the word remains enshrined in our Constitution and Laws and a new stupid word Hindutva has been coined and adopted by India's extreme right wing politicians and their ignorant following.

So... why are you posting in Hinduism DIR? Please read the forum rules.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"Spirit_Warrior,"

Namaste,

This is my view, what are yours?

I would consider what we term as "Hindu" in this day and age is but a description of a "Sanskriti", or a civilisation, this Sanskriti includes many aspects within it that can be classified as "religion", just like other civilisations which have existed in the past or still continue to exist.

Hinduism includes religious beliefs of many different variations and colors but is not defined by them, if it were a mere geographical term, then I would not be a Hindu as i have never been to India, nor was I, or my parents born in India, if it is only a religion then it does not fit into the common understanding of what a religion should be, as you and many others have already pointed out.

I would also agree with those that say Hinduism is "Sanatana Dharmah", or those that say Hinduism is a Philosophy or a teaching.

But people are usually confused about the "Label", which is applied to something rather then what that something is in itself, so i go back to the idea of "Sanskriti", or a civilisation as a most accurate definition, it is broad enough to encompass "religion", as well as Non-religion, yet is different from other Civilisations, how is Hindu Sanskriti different from other Sanskriti is what i am interested in.

Dhanyavad

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Agar aan turk-i-Shirazi badast aardill-i-ma-ra
bakhal-e-Hinduwash baksham Samarkand-o-Bukhara ra."

There is a Sanskrit word 'SANATANA DHARMA' in these texts and commentaries, that means a traditional behaviour and rites being adopted and collectively followed by the Aryans that had invaded India and destroyed the cities and habitats of the Indus Valley Civilization and enslaved its dark skinned natives the Dravidians and termed them Shudras (Outcasts).

1. There have been racists everywhere and all the time. Nothing strange if Shirazi says so. To me Indian women are all beautiful and the most beautiful of them is my wife.
2. Sanatan Dharma is a new word. What was expected from a Hindu was action according to 'Dharma' (Duty). Sanskrit/Hindi has no word for religion other than 'pantha' or 'mata'. And what is wrong with the name 'Hind' or 'Hindu', it has been in use from 1,000 BC and not coined by a Muslim in 10th Century.
3. Lastly, even Aryans had 'Shudras' because without that there won't be a four-fold division of the society. It is foolishness to consider that Aryans termed the indigenous people as 'shudras'.

With all that, since you have abandoned Hinduism as a religion, post in this forum only if you have a respectful question. The forum is not interested in your opinion. In case you continue, we will have to report it to the moderators.

 

[ajay0]

Brilliant and insightful article by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev stating that Hinduism is not an 'ism' but a way of life.

It is only recently and due to external influences that this geographical and cultural identity has attempted to transform itself into a religious identity called Hinduism. Hindu was never an “ism”, and the attempt to organize it as a religion is still not successful because the Hindu way of life which is referred to as Sanatana Dharma or universal law is all-inclusive in nature and does not exclude anything. The Hindu way of life is not an organized belief system but a science of salvation. -- Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

 

[Vinayaka]

Brilliant and insightful article by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev stating that Hinduism is not an 'ism' but a way of life.

He says, 'no belief system in the Hindu way of life"

What? No belief system?

This is a quote from Wikipedia article on ISHA Foundation:

"The foundation has established two ashrams: the Isha Yoga Center at the Velliangiri Mountains near Coimbatore and at the Isha Institute of Inner Sciences at McMinnville, Tennessee. The Isha Yoga Center houses the Dhyanalinga yogic temple, a space for meditation that does not ascribe to any particular faith or belief system. It was consecrated by Sadhguru in 1999."

What I fail to understand is the part about it not subscribing to any faith. It's a Sivalingam! Why do some people, in particular some 'eastern' teachers feel this need to distance themselves from Hinduism? What do you think?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because he is a fraud.

 

[ajay0]

He says, 'no belief system in the Hindu way of life"

What? No belief system?

This is a quote from Wikipedia article on ISHA Foundation:

"The foundation has established two ashrams: the Isha Yoga Center at the Velliangiri Mountains near Coimbatore and at the Isha Institute of Inner Sciences at McMinnville, Tennessee. The Isha Yoga Center houses the Dhyanalinga yogic temple, a space for meditation that does not ascribe to any particular faith or belief system. It was consecrated by Sadhguru in 1999."

What I fail to understand is the part about it not subscribing to any faith. It's a Sivalingam! Why do some people, in particular some 'eastern' teachers feel this need to distance themselves from Hinduism? What do you think?

Hinduism is a way of life, not a belief system like the abrahamic religions or communism or fascism or nazism and so on.

A belief system conditions one to see things as per the conditioned interpretation, and this results in missing of reality as it is.

The Iyers and Iyengars used to be hostile to each other as they felt Shiva to be superior to be Vishnu and vice versa. These are all childish stuff that prevented higher spiritual development due to the feelings of hatred and exclusion it generated.

If they had indeed worshipped Shiva or Vishnu with devotion without any exclusivity , they would have had God-realization and seen that all paths lead to the same goal as Sri Ramakrishna had observed himself.

A belief system is an extension of the illusory ego, which arises due to identification with the body-mind complex, and this increases dualistic consciousness and sense of separatedness. It actually intensifies body-consciousness or unconsciousness , which is counter-productive to the actual purpose of religion.

Here belief system is separate from faith and trust that comes from experiential understanding and which is an internal private matter altogether.

The present war on terror and crusades stemmed from religious belief systems that conflicted with each other's external perspective to the point of conflict and violence. The world wars arose from political,social and economic belief systems that conflicted with each other, resulting in tremondous destruction of life and property.

Belief systems blurs reality with one's interpretation of reality as per past conditioning, resulting in an inappropriate response to the emerging situation.

The focus of religion is to create love and awareness, which results in an appropriate response to emerging conditions, seeing reality as it is, and not from the subjective interpretation of one's background or past as that would create an emotive and negative reaction instead.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hinduism is a way of life, not a belief system like the abrahamic religions or communism or fascism or nazism and so on.

I personally think it's both, and that all faiths are both. Not really a belief system, but a collection of belief systems. If you look at other faiths, can you not say that Islam is a way of life? I think this 'Hinduism is a way of life, not a religion' thing is more just a populist catch phrase at the moment than anything else.

 

[ajay0]

I personally think it's both, and that all faiths are both. Not really a belief system, but a collection of belief systems.

Belief system or collection of belief systems is one and the same.

As I said earlier, belief systems, as distinguished from faith and trust that comes from experiential understanding, is just a way of pretending that you know, when you really don't know.

You believe, when you don't know for real. And this is the reason why those who are in belief systems are out of sync with reality, deluded and commit idiotic stuff.

Voltaire stated in this regard, " As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."


The focus of religion is on experiential understanding, not believing this or that. Believing this or that obscures the obvious, strengthens the ego, and clouds the natural state of awareness.

It is here that religion becomes a liability rather an asset to mankind.

If you look at other faiths, can you not say that Islam is a way of life? I think this 'Hinduism is a way of life, not a religion' thing is more just a populist catch phrase at the moment than anything else.

Orthodox Islam as it is now, is heavily belief oriented. Sufism is more into experiential understanding rather than belief in dogmas .

This is also one of the reasons why Sufism had not involved itself in religious wars and persecution, though it had been subject to persecution by orthodox and conservative Islamic groups...

Some sayings of the sufi sage Jallaludin Rumi in this regard....

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there.

“Conventional opinion is the ruin of our souls.”

“Every war and every conflict between human beings has happened because of some disagreement about names. It is such an unnecessary foolishness, because just beyond the arguing there is a long table of companionship set and waiting for us to sit down. What is praised is one, so the praise is one too, many jugs being poured into a huge basin. All religions, all this singing one song. The differences are just illusion and vanity. Sunlight looks a little different on this wall than it does on that wall and a lot different on this other one, but it is still one light. We have borrowed these clothes, these time-and-space personalities, from a light, and when we praise, we are pouring them back in.”


Sayings of Inayat Khan

“There can be no rebirth without a dark night of the soul, a total annihilation of all that you believed in and thought that you were.” Inayat Khan

The Sufi is free from beliefs and disbeliefs, and yet gives every liberty to people to have their own opinion.
Inayat Khan

I think this 'Hinduism is a way of life, not a religion' thing is more just a populist catch phrase at the moment than anything else.

Hinduism is a religion and a way of life, but not a belief system. The focus is more on knowingness rather than believing, which are two different things altogether.

It is the knower who attains enlightenment, not the believer.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hinduism is a religion and a way of life, but not a belief system. The focus is more on knowingness rather than believing, which are two different things altogether.

I get it to some degree. Still I have beliefs. I believe in Ganesha's existence. I believe in reincarnation. I believe in moksha. I believe in karma. I believe in darshan at a temple.

But each of these beliefs also has a practical side, and affect my way of life.

As to entering any debate, I see it as having differing POVs and leave it at that. Mystics don't argue. You can go ahead and try to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, but that won't get us very far.

I believe that Hindus have beliefs. You don't. In the grand scheme, no big deal to me. To you, perhaps. I wouldn't know.

 

[ajay0]

I get it to some degree. Still I have beliefs. I believe in Ganesha's existence. I believe in reincarnation. I believe in moksha. I believe in karma. I believe in darshan at a temple.

But each of these beliefs also has a practical side, and affect my way of life.

As to entering any debate, I see it as having differing POVs and leave it at that. Mystics don't argue. You can go ahead and try to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, but that won't get us very far.

I believe that Hindus have beliefs. You don't. In the grand scheme, no big deal to me. To you, perhaps. I wouldn't know.

This has more to do with faith, than with beliefs.

Krishna stated thus in the Uddhava Gita, " Evil is seeing relative good and evil, while good is going beyond both."

If your 'beliefs' help you to observe and adapt to reality as it is, without conflict and disharmony, and generate responses rather than emotive, deluded and negative reactions, than you are on the right track.

 

[Vinayaka]

This has more to do with faith, than with beliefs.

Krishna stated thus in the Uddhava Gita, " Evil is seeing relative good and evil, while good is going beyond both."

If your 'beliefs' help you to observe and adapt to reality as it is, without conflict and disharmony, and generate responses rather than emotive, deluded and negative reactions, than you are on the right track.

I am on the right track, am I? Good to know, lol.

How old are you? You seem to have assumed the teacher role in this discussion. Odd, that.

 

[ajay0]

I am on the right track, am I? Good to know, lol.

That is something you must review on a constant basis to ensure that there is no mishaps. I know of sane people who got deluded later on as they took on board erroneous beliefs .

Krishna had stated that the loss of ability to discern properly is the recipe of ruin.

How old are you? You seem to have assumed the teacher role in this discussion. Odd, that.

Well, I have not assumed the 'teacher ' role enough to state a respected sage and master of modern times is a 'fraud' . Lol...

There is only discussion between matured adults, no teaching.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well, I have not assumed the 'teacher ' role enough to state a respected sage and master of modern times is a 'fraud' . Lol...

There is only discussion between matured adults, no teaching.

I can't recall calling anyone a fraud. Mass-market Gurus do just that ... a lot of marketing. Many also do a ton of social work, as they get the numbers for volunteering. They do also have their place, and have a wonderful role to fulfill. Nobody would ever hear about these concepts if they weren't out there. Similarly, back in the 60s, ISKCON did a wonderful job of spreading the word.

Traditionally, though, there are some guidelines being broken, like charging fees for courses, and the like. Another observation is the the guru-sihya relationship isn't there for many because of time constraints.

I've watched a couple of Sadhguru's videos and quite enjoyed his speaking style.

I do take exception (partly because I don't get it, or see any reason for it) to the distancing from Hinduism many seem to try to do. Basically anyone can see it's Hindu anyway.

 

[ajay0]

Mass-market Gurus do just that ... a lot of marketing. Many also do a ton of social work, as they get the numbers for volunteering. They do also have their place, and have a wonderful role to fulfill. Nobody would ever hear about these concepts if they weren't out there. Similarly, back in the 60s, ISKCON did a wonderful job of spreading the word.

Traditionally, though, there are some guidelines being broken, like charging fees for courses, and the like. Another observation is the the guru-sihya relationship isn't there for many because of time constraints.

I've watched a couple of Sadhguru's videos and quite enjoyed his speaking style.

I do take exception (partly because I don't get it, or see any reason for it) to the distancing from Hinduism many seem to try to do. Basically anyone can see it's Hindu anyway.

Sadhguru has not distanced himself from Hinduism. He has only defined it as a cultural identity, which is now becoming more of a religious identity, due to pressure to emulate the aggressive abrahamic religions for self-defence.

The other factor is that the enlightened one has a completely nondual perception and naturally sees everything as an extension of himself or herself. He cannot distinguish between human beings on the basis of caste, creed, religion and other dualistic stuff. That all divisive identities are extensions of the illusory ego is a natural fact for him, though it may not be so for others in the spell of Maya.

This may be hard to comprehend, but if you could somehow stand in his shoes or be in his satsang, you might get an idea.

 

[Vinayaka]

Sadhguru has not distanced himself from Hinduism.

I've searched the ISHA website high and low for the term 'Hindu' but have been unable to find it. Perhaps you can find a link for me where he espouses Hinduism.

 

[ajay0]

I've searched the ISHA website high and low for the term 'Hindu' but have been unable to find it. Perhaps you can find a link for me where he espouses Hinduism.

Adiyogi Shiva statue - Wikipedia

The 112 foot tall Adiyogi Shiva statue designed by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev was inagurated by Indian prime minister Narendra Modi on 24 Feb 2017, on the occasion of Mahashivaratri, a Hindu festival celebrated annually.

Sadhguru said that the statue is for inspiring and promoting yoga, and is named Adiyogi, which means "the first yogi", because god Shiva is known as the originator of yoga. The Adiyogi Statue has been recognized as the "Largest Bust Sculpture" by Guinness World Records.

 

[Vinayaka]

Adiyogi Shiva statue - Wikipedia

The 112 foot tall Adiyogi Shiva statue designed by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev was inagurated by Indian prime minister Narendra Modi on 24 Feb 2017, on the occasion of Mahashivaratri, a Hindu festival celebrated annually.

Sadhguru said that the statue is for inspiring and promoting yoga, and is named Adiyogi, which means "the first yogi", because god Shiva is known as the originator of yoga. The Adiyogi Statue has been recognized as the "Largest Bust Sculpture" by Guinness World Records.

Yes it's nice. I prefer Dakshinamurty personally, but sure.

Of course all Hindus would already know all about Shivaratri, so for us there is no need to explain or mention it's an annual festival. Good time to inaugurate it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

***Mod Post: Reminder that this portion of Religious Forums is marked 'Dir'. Debate is not allowed in Dir areas per rule 10 of forum rules.***

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads.

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there.
The staff more strictly moderate Rule 10 violations where there is some other rule violation involved, such as preaching in a DIR or trolling a political forum a member doesn't belong to. More benign violations may be subject to informal reminders or moving threads to the appropriate location.

From RF Rules