Moksha and who is "worthy" of it

[Maya3]

My wonder is this: lets do another group Christians are done to death here lol. I have a lot of atheist friends. Lets say one is actually a very dharmic person. They may not offer the fruits of their labors to God but they do offer it to the world, well what is the world but a small part of God? God is in all things so to offer anything to anyone is akin to offering to God. So to me if they live a life acting in a way beneficial to the world and without care for reward or to feed their ego I would say that is a dharmic life. Now about this sticky issue of reaching and coming to know God. I think even Atheists come to know God just in their own way. They look out into the universe and see the natural beauty. These are though in fact creations of God, and as such God is present in them. We too see God in our world around us, in other, in our murtis, in the scriptures, etc etc etc why not they? Because they claim he does not exist? Just because you are unaware you are staring into the face of God does not mean you are not doing just that. It's like this forum many of us have come to know each other well, and yet we have never met in person. The atheist thinks they are coming to know the universe, in fact they are coming to know God.

Definitely, The Gita speaks of this when it talks about Selfless service for those who cannot concentrate in meditation or spend a lot of time studying.

If you see God you see God. Who knows, maybe it happens after you have meditated in a cave for lifetimes. Or after you are hit on the head and have a spiritual experience.
Maybe after being an atheist all your life doing a lot of good in the world helping people.
Once you see AUM, you do. AUM/God/Brahman is not going to say "Nope, I'm not letting you look because you didn't believe me. Close your eyes!!"
If anything he/she/it will just smile and wont even say, "I told you so!"

Maya

 

[Stormcry]

There is "Sanatana Dharma" and there is "Hinduism". Both are used interchangeably, but from what I understand, Hinduism means more the rituals, deities and overall culture that comes with the religion. While Sanatana Dharma, which can and does also have those qualities, means more the ability that people have for self realization. With this in mind, Sanatana Dharma knows no boundaries; and a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Bah'ai (among many others) could easy be practicing the Sanatana Dharma. They just don't know it.

Namaste ,

Don't show yourself as a newbie !

For your information, the previous name of Hinduism was sanatana vedic dharma . Outsiders call us Hindus ie followers of vedic dharma but we prefer sanatana vedic dharma to describe ourselves.

Any Christian by birth can follow sanatana dharma . But most of them don't understand what is hindu dharma and what is bramhan as their mind was previously ruling by deluded fake christian beliefs.

Thank you

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste ,

Don't show yourself as a newbie !

For your information, the previous name of Hinduism was sanatana vedic dharma . Outsiders call us Hindus ie followers of vedic dharma but we prefer sanatana vedic dharma to describe ourselves.

Any Christian by birth can follow sanatana dharma . But most of them don't understand what is hindu dharma and what is bramhan as their mind was previously ruling by deluded fake christian beliefs.

Thank you

Don't show yourself as a newbie! Learn how to spell, jk!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

So now for another one of my complicated questions

Do you think moksha is attainable by other religions? If so which ones?

If not what do you think happens to "good" people who have "matured" spiritually, do they reincarnate as a Hindu?

I think we should be asking why and how is Moksha attainable in the first place?

I think Why = because we are bound to physical existence.

I think How = Knowledge of our self

And who gets Moksha, the religions or the ideologies, the temples or churches or the mosques and synagogues, the white people or black? I think none of them but the Atman is the one who gets or attains Moksha.

Is there really a condition on Moksha? I don't think so, otherwise its not Moksha but the opposite.

In my opinion Moksha is release from all "this" including the religions and the Karma, the attachment to the body and this world, the questions and answers and the desire for knowledge, while still existing in all "this" being like the bird that observes without eating. Moksha/Nirvana or whatever is being in a state of freedom from all this that binds us.

that's me 2 cents for the day.

 

[Stormcry]

Namaste, singh.

It seems that you are from iskcon, non-vedic sect of Hinduism . They are called as pseudo ved followers. They have a habit of insulting others and gods too.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste, singh.

It seems that you are from iskcon, non-vedic sect of Hinduism . They are called as pseudo ved followers. They have a habit of insulting others and gods too.

I'm not an ISKCONite; I'm technically a part of the Haṃsa-sampradāya, meaning I follow the dvaitādvaita of Niyamānanda (i.e. Nimbāditya). Philosophically we're closer to the beliefs of the Śrī-sampradāya than the "Brahmā-Madhva-Gauḍīya"-sampradāya, although we are similar to the Gauḍīyā-s insofar that both sampradāyau place an emphasis dāsyabhāva and stress seeking śaraṇāgati from Śrīmatī Rādhārānī. You do realize that not all non-advaitin Vaiṣṇava-s are Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s, right? Also, I don't attack other gods, and I sympathize with your pain to an extent. Some ISKCONites do insult other devāḥ, as I have seen many claim that Durgā/Pārvatī is lecherous or stating that Śiva is merely dvārapālā of Vaikuṇṭha, but usually these type of ISKCONites are quite intolerant in their beliefs and don't represent the views of most ISKCONites by any means. Although I do agree that Prabhupāda went way to far when claiming that devāḥ means "demigods." Although, when you think about it, many Śrīvaiṣṇava-s are just as bad and some go so far as to state that Śiva is merely a jīva. Still, advaitin-s can be just as bad at times, I've recently met one who created a video claiming that Vaiṣṇava-s are evil and that Vaiṣṇava Ācāryāḥ are frauds, so advaitins certainly aren't the least sectarian either (if that's what you're getting at). BTW, "jk" means just kidding, so I didn't actually mean that in a derogatory sense, I was just pointing out that you hadn't corrected the error I told you about before.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[Kalidas]

Namaste ,

Don't show yourself as a newbie !

For your information, the previous name of Hinduism was sanatana vedic dharma . Outsiders call us Hindus ie followers of vedic dharma but we prefer sanatana vedic dharma to describe ourselves.

Any Christian by birth can follow sanatana dharma . But most of them don't understand what is hindu dharma and what is bramhan as their mind was previously ruling by deluded fake christian beliefs.

Thank you

Ouch, I guess I am out guys. To bad I was born a Christian and the words of man seems to have a far stronger grasp over me then the power of Brahman. I guess I'm wasting my time

All "joking" aside. Yes I was a Christian for a LONG time and yes I have only been a Hindu for a short time. Yes it has not always been easy to get over my past but I do try every day. Heck I just contacted the leader of the church where I was baptized and formally sent him a letter of my renouncing the Christian faith. But none of that matters because it is the Goddess whom I choose to worship and love the most who I care about above all others.

 

[Stormcry]

I'm not an ISKCONite; I'm technically a part of the Haṃsa-sampradāya, meaning I follow the dvaitadvaita of Niyamānanda (i.e. Nimbāditya). Philosophically we're closer to the beliefs of the Śrī-sampradāya than the "Brahmā-Madhva-Gauḍīya"-sampradāya, although we are similar to the Gauḍīyā-s insofar that both sampradāyau place an emphasis dāsyabhāva and stress seeking śaraṇāgati from Śrīmatī Rādhārānī. You do realize that not all non-advaitin Vaiṣṇava-s are Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s, right? Also, I don't attack other gods, and I sympathize with your pain to an extent. Some ISKCONites do insult other devāḥ, as I have seen many claim that Durgā/Pārvatī is lecherous or stating that Śiva is merely dvārapālā of Vaikuṇṭha, but usually these type of ISKCONites are quite intolerant in their beliefs and don't represent the views of most ISKCONites by any means. Although I do agree that Prabhupāda went way to far when claiming that devāḥ means "demigod." Although, when you think about it, many Śrīvaiṣṇava-s are just as bad and some go so far as to state that Śiva is a jīva. Still, advaitin-s can be just as bad at times, I've recently met one who created a video claiming that Vaiṣṇava-s are evil and that Ācāryāḥ are frauds, so advaitins certainly aren't the least sectarian either (if that's what you're getting at). BTW, "jk" means just kidding, so I didn't actually mean that in a derogatory sense, I was just pointing out that you hadn't correct the error I told you about before

If you are non iskcoNite, then you are safe .
Iskcon claims their root in Chaitanya mahaprabhu movement, but In reality, they are offshoots of mainstream gaudiya Vaishnavism. It refers 'Chaitanya charitamrita' which was not written by mahaprabhu. Besides that scripure is not considered authentic. Because it is clearly contradictory to the veda and Upanishads.

Edited : Iskcon is a adulterated christianised version of hindu dharma or may be a kaliyug sect. It is not right for those who are serious about moksha . Iskcon is for materialistic Christians not for those who are progressed in veda knowledge. I personally feel that Hindus ( sikh, jain, buddist) shouldn't follow them. Instead they should follow other vedic Vaishnava sampradayas.



Hare krishna..

 

[arpankhandelwal]

So now for another one of my complicated questions

Do you think moksha is attainable by other religions? If so which ones?

If not what do you think happens to "good" people who have "matured" spiritually, do they reincarnate as a Hindu?

Any person knowingly or unknowingly correctly follows the main basic principles of "Dharma" defined in Hinduism irrespective of his/her religion can attain Moksha.


Truly there is in this world nothing so purifying as knowledge.- (Bhagwad Gita [4.38])

 

[Poeticus]

Any person knowingly or unknowingly correctly follows the main basic principles of "Dharma" defined in Hinduism irrespective of his/her religion can attain Moksha.

Kalidas,

Arpan speaks the truth and I have to concur with the brief but valuable post he has made (as quoted above).

I can think of many non-Indian-non-Hindus who have unknowingly followed many basic principles of "Dharma" that definitely make it seem like they must have attained Moksha.

Moksha is a concept that does not confine itself to any one creed nor one race. If that was the case with Moksha, I would have converted to Islam by now.

 

[Stormcry]

Kalidas,

Arpan speaks the truth and I have to concur with the brief but valuable post he has made (as quoted above).

I can think of many non-Indian-non-Hindus who have unknowingly followed many basic principles of "Dharma" that definitely make it seem like they must have attained Moksha.

Moksha is a concept that does not confine itself to any one creed nor one race. If that was the case with Moksha, I would have converted to Islam by now.

Yes, anyone can follow Hindu vedic dharma . HOW one can follow Hindu dharma unknowingly ?

My only point is that ' without following vedic dharma, one can not get moksha '. This has the authority of veda.

Upanishadas says ' only knowers of bramhan become that bramhan'.

And please remember that there is not moksha concept in other religions. Moksha is a hindu-sanskrit word.

@kalidas : If there is not moksha concept in other religions, why you are asking that question ?

Hare krishna...

 

[Valjean]

Moksha is a universal consequence of a specific -- also "perennial" -- state of consciousness. It's not a thing unto itself.
Rebirth is a time-dependent phenomenon. It occurs within the medium of time. It stands to reason that if the dimension of time is removed from the equation, the phenomenon becomes meaningless. How can rebirth occur within an eternal, timeless Now?

The whole issue revolves around the attainment of a cosmic consciousness, AKA: enlightenment, Samadhi, Nirvana, &al. Once the illusion of time has been transcended any time-dependent phenomena logically, become moot.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste,

Re: HK
1) I don't think HK is in any way racist in his thinking (may have sounded so). He believes anyone can follow Hindu Dharma. Further, he believes, much like as I do too, Sikhs Jains Baudhs etc are Hindus.
2) HK believes that various people- following Hindu Dharma- are at various stages, some start from far off, some are closer, to the "core".
3) This "far" / "close" is understood by HK in terms of ritual (I believe in rituals) hierarchy.

Re: JS
1) Re, untouchability. Just common sense here, who were the people that formed the continuum between Aryans and Dasyus? Dāsa-s. Let us see this way:
Dasyu => Dāsa => Ārya
2) Tribals are not untouchable but untouchables are (even though they are more Arya like). I call these people the "transition people". Without fail, they were finally inducted as Udgatr Rtvij-varna, and then into Sudra-s. Not because Sudra-s were the lowest entry point into Varna, but because only Sudrat-va had the power to do this (There is no hierarchy among Varna-s, but they are different from each other).

<methinks>
HK believes in Heirarchy among gods, hence the hierarchy among men follows in his worldview. He thinks he believes in "Vedic".
KT doesn't believe in Heirarchy among gods ("all of you 33 gods are equally great" --RV), hence equality among men follows in my worldview. I think I believe in "Veda".

<concludes>
This doesn't mean, however, that there is no difference between Arya and Dasyu. There is, there is indeed a chasm so to say between these two. It is the same as between "Asat" and "Sat", and Veda tells us clearly, it is Asat (ignorance/ limitation) that came / comes before Sat.

There are no Rsis anymore, "untouchability" if it was indeed a part of the ritual play, has become frozen, horrendously. No Rsis, no Varna, and no untouchability or whatever, period. But this puts a lot of onus today on starters (or those who feel "outsiders") to consciously follow the many essential rituals, that had been prescribed since olden times.

<vandan&#257;>
To Devi Ush&#257;.

 

[Poeticus]

It still doesn't change the fact that:

""In mankind, nobody is superior or inferior. All strive together like brothers for the glory and prowess." (R.V.5.60.5)

That is Shruti.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

It still doesn't change the fact that:
""In mankind, nobody is superior or inferior. All strive together like brothers for the glory and prowess." (R.V.5.60.5)
That is Shruti.

I reject your translation, but accept what you say, with due considerations as in my last post.
You put a lot of effort, as I have come to understand, in following ritualistic ways of Veda. This is also an important message that you should give out, instead of sounding like armchair philosopher (when in fact you aren't)- as in words of Vinayaka- "All is same..all is same..all is same.."

 

[Vinayaka]

Nobody in a physical body can attain moksha. As Seyorni says, moksha is an outcome of something else. One in a physical body cannot be away from samsara. It's like saying the physical body dead and alive at the same time.

It is because of discussions like this that focus entirely on some future state that I find it pointless. There are better things to do in the present than argue about some distant goal. The argument won't get you there any faster.

 

[Poeticus]

I reject your translation, but accept what you say, with due considerations as in my last post.
You put a lot of effort, as I have come to understand, in following ritualistic ways of Veda. This is also an important message that you should give out, instead of sounding like armchair philosopher (when in fact you aren't)- as in words of Vinayaka- "All is same..all is same..all is same.."

You can reject the translation as much as you want. But, it's the most correct translation out there, unless you have a better one.

It still doesn't change the fact that the Rica in question is a revelation from the Gods. Untouchability is not.

And, what does ritualistic tendencies have to do with my quote from the Rig Veda? Stop sidetracking, KT.

There was a lot of unnecessary garbage on this thread about caste this and untouchability that. All I did by using that quote was make it clear that the foremost of Shruti does not hold the human-construct of untouchability as theologically, socially, and philosophically valid. In fact, it holds the concept of untouchability in high contempt.

 

[Vinayaka]

There was a lot of unnecessary garbage on this thread about caste this and untouchability that. All I did by using that quote was make it clear that the foremost of Shruti does not hold the human-construct of untouchability as theologically, socially, and philosophically valid. In fact, it holds the concept of untouchability in high contempt.

Using any excuse to make yourself feel better has the root cause of low self-esteem.

 

[arpankhandelwal]

Moksha is a concept that does not confine itself to any one creed nor one race. If that was the case with Moksha, I would have converted to Islam by now.

My brother as you know there are some (not all) principles in other religions like Islam which are against the main basic principles of "Dharma"! So there is an advantage to the people who are following Hinduism because it's easier for them to have faith in those principles of "Dharma" defined in Hinduism!

There are some people who are not Hindu e.g. John Abraham (famous Indian actor) became vegetarian, because he didn't like to eat meat of the innocent animals. So unknowingly John Abraham followed one of the principles of "Dharma".

Website link : John Abraham Talks Vegetarian Diet and Animal Rights


Truly there is in this world nothing so purifying as knowledge.- (Bhagwad Gita [4.38])

 

[Stormcry]

Yes ,

No doubt sikhs, jains, Buddhists are hindus. But unfortunately, their Hindu ancestors got deviated from vedic path and principles .

It will be very great and joyful if they once again join us I strongly feel they should be with us. Come and join ! Absolute truth is not far from us !

Hare krishna....