Lets Talk About Hinduism

[JustGeorge]

This might be a good place for those who the Let's Talk About Ganesh or Let's Talk About Shiva threads brought up questions.

It can also be a good place to discuss Hindu topics, philosophy, or viewpoints.

Om!

 

[LuisDantas]

Anyone willing to talk a bit about Jnana? It sounds like an interesting concept.

 

[JustGeorge]

Anyone willing to talk a bit about Jnana? It sounds like an interesting concept.

I think @SalixIncendium might be the guy for this.

 

[mangalavara]

Anyone willing to talk a bit about Jnana? It sounds like an interesting concept.

Although I cannot talk much about jnana (or jñāna as it is spelled in IAST), I would like to mention that I have heard Swami Sarvapriyananda explain in a video that Hinduism contains different kinds of paths for different kinds of people. Whereas bhakti or devotion is a great path for those of us who are more inclined to adore a deity, jnana or knowledge is a path for those who are more meditative and philosophically inclined rather than deity inclined. Whereas bhakti is essentially about doing something, jnana is essentially about realizing something. In devotion, we do. In knowledge, we know.

 

[Vinayaka]

Anyone willing to talk a bit about Jnana? It sounds like an interesting concept.

It has become somewhat confusing these days. Jnana, in its truest sense, is wisdom gained from experience. That experience can be either great observational skills, or meditative, inner experiences. Sadly, and I don't know why, in some circles, it has become synonymous with book knowledge, which is another type of knowledge. One who is advanced in jnana is a jnani. A jnani can apply his knowledge to every day life circumstances to better understand the workings of this multifaceted universe.

 

[JustGeorge]

It has become somewhat confusing these days. Jnana, in its truest sense, is wisdom gained from experience. That experience can be either great observational skills, or meditative, inner experiences. Sadly, and I don't know why, in some circles, it has become synonymous with book knowledge, which is another type of knowledge. One who is advanced in jnana is a jnani. A jnani can apply his knowledge to every day life circumstances to better understand the workings of this multifaceted universe.

This is probably the path I know the least on.

How does someone interested in this path get started? What is their focus(typically speaking)?

 

[Vinayaka]

This is probably the path I know the least on.

How does someone interested in this path get started? What is their focus(typically speaking)?

In Saiva Siddhanta it is simply not viewed as a separate path, so I have nothing to offer. We see four overlapping stages, and this view is a major difference between us and most Vedanta schools. In my view, jnana is an outcome of the first three stages, which are, in order, charya, kriya, and yoga. So jnana (wisdom) is simple a natural outcome of mastering charya (virtuous living), kriya (bhakti), and yoga (meditation, dhyana). Not a separate path at all. One of the challenges for neo-Advaitins is that they allow themselves to skip the first three, and then get little jnana as a result.

My testimony about Bhairava in the other thread illustrates this. I got 'all doors have two directions' from bhakti, and previous meditations. Applications of that are things like how birth and death are understandable as merely going opposite directions of the same door ... the door between the astral and physical. So to me, that's what jnana is.

 

[mangalavara]

Sadly, and I don't know why, in some circles, it has become synonymous with book knowledge, which is another type of knowledge.

It is a misconception that I have seen online. In one place, someone talked about practicing jñāna by sitting down and reading the Upaniṣads a lot. On the Hinduism subreddit, some guy thought jñāna meant reading the Itihāsas and Purāṇas and trying to understand them. My impression is that the actual practice of jñāna does not require reading any books or scriptures.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is a misconception that I have seen online. In one place, someone talked about practicing jñāna by sitting down and reading the Upaniṣads a lot. On the Hinduism subreddit, some guy thought jñāna meant reading the Itihāsas and Purāṇas and trying to understand them. My impression is that the actual practice of jñāna does not require reading any books or scriptures.

And I totally concur, but you already knew that. But hey, the intellectual grid has its own magnets, keeping people stuck in it. It's a natural stage in the soul's evolution.

 

[JustGeorge]

In Saiva Siddhanta it is simply not viewed as a separate path, so I have nothing to offer. We see four overlapping stages, and this view is a major difference between us and most Vedanta schools. In my view, jnana is an outcome of the first three stages, which are, in order, charya, kriya, and yoga. So jnana (wisdom) is simple a natural outcome of mastering charya (virtuous living), kriya (bhakti), and yoga (meditation, dhyana). Not a separate path at all. One of the challenges for neo-Advaitins is that they allow themselves to skip the first three, and then get little jnana as a result.

My testimony about Bhairava in the other thread illustrates this. I got 'all doors have two directions' from bhakti, and previous meditations. Applications of that are things like how birth and death are understandable as merely going opposite directions of the same door ... the door between the astral and physical. So to me, that's what jnana is.

Thanks. This post has given me a lot to think about.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks. This post has given me a lot to think about.

Oh no. Thinking is no fun.

 

[JustGeorge]

Oh no. Thinking is no fun.

Better than stinking.

 

[Vinayaka]

Better than stinking.

It's easier to stink.

In the meditation technique, I've been taught, you go in (by focusing on breath, body heat, nerve currents, and spine, until you get to a point of only being aware. Then you mentally introduce the topic, but you don't 'think' about it. You just sort of float awareness in and around it, and hopefully, but not always, some insight will spontaneously occur. That insight can also occur a few days later, out of the blue. But this isn't thinking. It's more like enjoying an experience (awareness focusing on a beautiful sunrise, as an example). With practice, insights become more frequent.

 

[JustGeorge]

It's easier to stink.

Not necessarily for those around you.

In the meditation technique, I've been taught, you go in (by focusing on breath, body heat, nerve currents, and spine, until you get to a point of only being aware. Then you mentally introduce the topic, but you don't 'think' about it. You just sort of float awareness in and around it, and hopefully, but not always, some insight will spontaneously occur. That insight can also occur a few days later, out of the blue. But this isn't thinking. It's more like enjoying an experience (awareness focusing on a beautiful sunrise, as an example). With practice, insights become more frequent.

Good tip! Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Quintessence]

I've listened to a few talks here and there about how Hinduism is basically the Paganism that survived the aggressive proselytizing and colonialism of Western monotheism. As such I tend to view it as a deeply authentic and indigenous Pagan tradition that is what we might have had in the West if ours hadn't been shattered and broken. They're a Pagan tradition that actually has unbroken continuity while we're left picking up pieces and digging for things that don't even exist anymore. You'd think that would engender some sort of jealousy but for me, it mostly just makes me sad for the indigenous and historical Paganisms of the West. And also happy that there's intact indigenous traditions that are still out there and we can learn from each other.

All that said, I've learned that many of these surviving indigenous religions really don't like the label "Pagan" and wouldn't apply that to themselves. I get it - I mean, the term originated as a pejorative in the West to describe indigenous holdouts as the Christianity was enshrined in the halls of power. Who would call themselves Pagan, anyway? It is a bit weird, even as we've tried to reclaim that label. But the parallels between the extremely wide and diverse umbrella that is Hinduism and the extremely wide and diverse umbrella that is contemporary Paganism is sure interesting. We both argue about whether (and how) diverse theological perspectives fit (or don't) within these traditions, for example.

 

[JustGeorge]

I've listened to a few talks here and there about how Hinduism is basically the Paganism that survived the aggressive proselytizing and colonialism of Western monotheism. As such I tend to view it as a deeply authentic and indigenous Pagan tradition that is what we might have had in the West if ours hadn't been shattered and broken. They're a Pagan tradition that actually has unbroken continuity while we're left picking up pieces and digging for things that don't even exist anymore. You'd think that would engender some sort of jealousy but for me, it mostly just makes me sad for the indigenous and historical Paganisms of the West. And also happy that there's intact indigenous traditions that are still out there and we can learn from each other.

I agree with this. I am sad for the many traditions that didn't survive with as much intact.

I believe(and its just a belief) the Gods overseeing those traditions will help those trying to pick up the pieces, over time.

 

[Spice]

In Saiva Siddhanta it is simply not viewed as a separate path, so I have nothing to offer. We see four overlapping stages, and this view is a major difference between us and most Vedanta schools. In my view, jnana is an outcome of the first three stages, which are, in order, charya, kriya, and yoga. So jnana (wisdom) is simple a natural outcome of mastering charya (virtuous living), kriya (bhakti), and yoga (meditation, dhyana). Not a separate path at all. One of the challenges for neo-Advaitins is that they allow themselves to skip the first three, and then get little jnana as a result.

My testimony about Bhairava in the other thread illustrates this. I got 'all doors have two directions' from bhakti, and previous meditations. Applications of that are things like how birth and death are understandable as merely going opposite directions of the same door ... the door between the astral and physical. So to me, that's what jnana is.

So would it be correct to say Jhana is not so much a path as a surprise, or unexpected destination reached while traveling?

 

[Spice]

It's easier to stink.

In the meditation technique, I've been taught, you go in (by focusing on breath, body heat, nerve currents, and spine, until you get to a point of only being aware. Then you mentally introduce the topic, but you don't 'think' about it. You just sort of float awareness in and around it, and hopefully, but not always, some insight will spontaneously occur. That insight can also occur a few days later, out of the blue. But this isn't thinking. It's more like enjoying an experience (awareness focusing on a beautiful sunrise, as an example). With practice, insights become more frequent.

Would you say this is more being mindful, or allowing the flow of stream-of-consciousness. I'm interpreting you to mean to find a target, then let the mind flow freely in stream-of-consciousness and see if it strikes.

 

[Vinayaka]

Would you say this is more being mindful, or allowing the flow of stream-of-consciousness. I'm interpreting you to mean to find a target, then let the mind flow freely in stream-of-consciousness and see if it strikes.

I agree with your interpretation. Of course it is all very dependent on whether or not you can calm your mind (quell the racing thinking mind) to that degree, where 'stuff' can actually happen.

 

[Spice]

I've listened to a few talks here and there about how Hinduism is basically the Paganism that survived the aggressive proselytizing and colonialism of Western monotheism. As such I tend to view it as a deeply authentic and indigenous Pagan tradition that is what we might have had in the West if ours hadn't been shattered and broken. They're a Pagan tradition that actually has unbroken continuity while we're left picking up pieces and digging for things that don't even exist anymore. You'd think that would engender some sort of jealousy but for me, it mostly just makes me sad for the indigenous and historical Paganisms of the West. And also happy that there's intact indigenous traditions that are still out there and we can learn from each other.

All that said, I've learned that many of these surviving indigenous religions really don't like the label "Pagan" and wouldn't apply that to themselves. I get it - I mean, the term originated as a pejorative in the West to describe indigenous holdouts as the Christianity was enshrined in the halls of power. Who would call themselves Pagan, anyway? It is a bit weird, even as we've tried to reclaim that label. But the parallels between the extremely wide and diverse umbrella that is Hinduism and the extremely wide and diverse umbrella that is contemporary Paganism is sure interesting. We both argue about whether (and how) diverse theological perspectives fit (or don't) within these traditions, for example.

Have you by any chance read any of the North America's Forgotten Past Series written by Archeologists Kathleen O'Neal Gear and husband, W. Michael Gear? They include amazing indigenous religious beliefs and practices as gathered in their research to write this series of migration. It's written in narrative fiction, of course, as they travel back in time 10s of thousands years. The first in the series is _The People if the Wolf_