• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Dogma of Bhakti: The views of a dissident Hindu

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Some Hindus take their traditionalism very very seriously. Some Indians take their cultural/Indian Hinduism very very seriously. I also understand that. That's why I personally don't have a problem with the other forum.

I agree with you in this regard; this exists. However, we tend to forget that there are lurkers on any forum who are testing the waters to get the overall tone of the site. To come out swinging is not acceptable from either person, the questioner or the responder. Unfortunately any group whether cyber or real life, be it the lgbt community, a particular ethnic group or nationality, a religious group, has its share of an extremely vocal and vitriolic minority that sends a signal representing the whole group. That's what turns people away. Consider the misconceptions about the lgbt community (I don't like the word community because it implies living as a group in a housing development) because of the vocal activist groups. They send the wrong signals.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I'm not really sure of where the rudeness in Indian culture (as compared to our more polite Canadian or American culture) came from but this quote from the Tirukkural: Chapter 11 ... "It is improper to ever forget a kindness, but good to forget at once an injury received" seems to indicate it wasn't always there.

So there is this cultural difference with regard to societal politeness norms going on. I've witnessed some very loud arguments between auto-rickshaw drivers and their customers over a 10 rupee difference from point A to point B. So its in the culture.

In our culture, it (rudeness) was there and still is sometimes. Fifty years ago it may have been more commonplace for a teacher to stand and publicly berate a student. Now they'd get fired. If you think Indians are rude sometimes, there are other cultures that are even worse, in comparison. But, for whatever reason, it is the cultural norm, and when in Rome ...
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I've never been to India, so I don't know how the cultural climate is. But if you want rude, try NYC. If India is like NYC, ah now I get it. I wonder, though, if what we often take for rudeness is simply a terseness and self-preservation in day to day life. We say New Yorkers are rude, but in NY everything is at a fast pace. Hence the term "in a NY minute". One for the sociologists and anthropologists, I think.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
But if you want rude, try NYC.

I've been to both. NYC is a dream compared to some places over there. Its okay (not to me, but the cultural norm) to berate employees publicly, to yell, to bargain excessively, to walk away. Imagine the New Yorkers as obstinate drunks, and you might get close.
:)

But some places and people are excessive also with niceness. So depends on the context. i think people can hide on internet forums, and feel safer somehow. I also think in general internet people are more introverted, so may get insulted easier.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I've been to both. NYC is a dream compared to some places over there. Its okay (not to me, but the cultural norm) to berate employees publicly, to yell, to bargain excessively, to walk away. Imagine the New Yorkers as obstinate drunks, and you might get close.
:)

:eek: :eek: :eek: :run:

But some places and people are excessive also with niceness. So depends on the context. i think people can hide on internet forums, and feel safer somehow. I also think in general internet people are more introverted, so may get insulted easier.

:yes:
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
I looked at interfaithforums.com and found that it was not active since last year. Another one bites the dust. I've removed all my information and the bookmark for the other mentioned site, especially after I saw a very uncivil and snarky response to what I thought was a valid inquiry. I asked pretty much the same question here, and I got some very civil and informative answers. Had I gotten that uncivil response, I must say it would have provoked a response in kind from me. I realized I do not want to be part of that. This site (RF) is great, lively, informative and civil. It would be good if there were more people who contributed; the more the merrier. :)

Actually it's active, once you log in click on new posts and then you are in.

Maya
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
I agree with you in this regard; this exists. However, we tend to forget that there are lurkers on any forum who are testing the waters to get the overall tone of the site. To come out swinging is not acceptable from either person, the questioner or the responder. Unfortunately any group whether cyber or real life, be it the lgbt community, a particular ethnic group or nationality, a religious group, has its share of an extremely vocal and vitriolic minority that sends a signal representing the whole group. That's what turns people away. Consider the misconceptions about the lgbt community (I don't like the word community because it implies living as a group in a housing development) because of the vocal activist groups. They send the wrong signals.

Well put!

Maya
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
A bit off topic, but... sometimes I think people who come to forums and ask questions are just a bit lazy. There are lots of excellent on-line resources for the beginner, like Himalayan Academy's on-line books, the extensive library over at HDF, and lots more like Wikipedia, just with a simple search. Or this book list ... http://hinduism.about.com/library/products/aatp_basicbooks.htm

Sometimes it reminds me of the kids in my teacher days who'd come to the desk, and ask "what time it is?" when the clock at the front of the room was right over there. Sometimes I'd just point to the clock. On-line forums might be good places to argue, and give practical hints like where the nearest temple is, but just for basic information ... not really the best places.
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear vinayaka ji ,

whilst we are off topic .... hmmmm , yes sometimes I wonder are such posters realy lazy ? or are they prehaps genuinely in need of a little human interaction ? it is good to hear from a potentialy freindly voice .

but there are some who I hate to think are simply trying to set the cat amongst the pigions !!!! ratikala , dont go there !!!

so me thinks..... just try to give a sincere answer any how :yes:
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
so me thinks..... just try to give a sincere answer any how :yes:

Yes indeed, that is what I do, and you do too. No need to question motive until the cat shows his true face to the pigeons. But sometimes its also, "If you don't like the answer, and you had a pretty good idea what it would be, then why did you ask it?" Oh well... carry on.
 

Maija

Active Member
Well Mr. Surya Deva, I hope you don't ever stop considering yourself a Hindu.

I, as a white American, always liked the idea that Hinduism was very tolerant of differing views among adherants.

Maybe your giving to much emotional energy to what other people think. Stand and defend your position in a gentle intelligent way, that's the real Hindu way. Good debate has always been part of the tradition. If you got banned then they are not very Hindu

Agreed.

People can watch the same movie, read the same book and all have a different reaction to it. That is our nature, with different minds and moods we apprehend different aspects of the Mystic Divine and some are attuned to different ways of reaching God.

No room for insult here, no bodys RIGHT nobodys wrong in the discussion.

edited because I can be wordy and some things had already been said.
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
A bit off topic, but... sometimes I think people who come to forums and ask questions are just a bit lazy.

dear vinayaka ji ,

whilst we are off topic .... hmmmm , yes sometimes I wonder are such posters realy lazy ? or are they prehaps genuinely in need of a little human interaction ? it is good to hear from a potentialy freindly voice .

I sometimes wonder why when people ask a question, I go to Google or Wiki and put in a seach phrase, and get it in a few seconds, then post the response.

How do you think I come up with verses from the Bhagavad Gita so quickly? I put in 'Bhagavad Gita universe fragment' and I get https://www.google.com/search?as_q=...t=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

The 2nd hit is
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 10 Verse 42

vedabase.net/bg/10/42/Cached
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 10 Verse 42. ... With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe. PURPORT. The Supreme Lord is ...

I'm not patting myself on my back, but I just did that now. So my secret is out. :p
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
OK thanks. I'll have to go back and register.

Cool, let me know when you do. I have not been there in a while, but if there is another Hindu (you) I'll go back. I'm going on vacation tomorrow, so I'm not sure how much I'll be on for a couple of weeks.

Maya
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
good morning jainarayan ,
How do you think I come up with verses from the Bhagavad Gita so quickly? I put in 'Bhagavad Gita universe fragment' and I get https://www.google.com/search?as_q=...t=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

The 2nd hit is
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 10 Verse 42

vedabase.net/bg/10/42/Cached
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 10 Verse 42. ... With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe. PURPORT. The Supreme Lord is ...

I'm not patting myself on my back, but I just did that now. So my secret is out. :p

are you saying that if I google bhagavad gita ..then the subject of verse , ..ie universal form .... that it will bring up that verse ? ....interesting ...then the selection would be random as to whos translation one might get ??? does this work with other more obscure texts ?

I use wickipidia often to check my spelling when I am not realy sure , but unfortunately my spelling is so bad at times that in not sure that I know when Im wrong or right anyway ....so I just hope you all forgive me my failings :)

I did begin posting here in attempt to learn to use the computer ... or to navigate my way around .....so I will learn something new ?
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
ok , ... I just tried and of course me being me , being curious and getting sidetracked just came across an interesting article which I might return to outside this post as it would make a good subject for discussion ... but came across this wonderfull picture

...
timthumb.php


you just cant do this with an on line version ....

there is then a chance that we loose the sence of the gitas sacredness !
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
good morning jainarayan ,


are you saying that if I google bhagavad gita ..then the subject of verse , ..ie universal form .... that it will bring up that verse ? ....interesting ...then the selection would be random as to whos translation one might get ??? does this work with other more obscure texts ?

Pretty much. But it will bring up anything it fnds with those words. So if you don't like Prabhupada's translation, you would then Google "Bhagavad Gita Tapasyananda 10.42" and get his translation (3rd hit, whole translation though http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...eA7_1iuqJWZ5pbO3Q&sig2=KeIhS0sFdyDTc_EVwTSyVw).

Don't mess with me when it comes to internet searches... if I can't find it, t'ain't there. :biglaugh:

Some more obscure things need some more digging, but if you know pretty much what a verse, phrase or quote is, Google will show you sources. For example, I've queried "the universe is not only stranger" to find out who really said it (Albert Einstein or Arthur C. Clarke... nope, it was variously attributed to Sir Arthur Eddington and J.B.S. Haldane ;)).

I use wickipidia often to check my spelling when I am not realy sure , but unfortunately my spelling is so bad at times that in not sure that I know when Im wrong or right anyway ....so I just hope you all forgive me my failings :)

How do you think I know where to put the diacritics for Sanskrit words? Wikipedia usually prints them correctly. Cheaters always win. :D Don't worry about your spelling. If someone can understand your spelling and grammar, it works (that's the hobby linguist in me talking :p).

I did begin posting here in attempt to learn to use the computer ... or to navigate my way around .....so I will learn something new ?

To quote Sri Krishna: "Of this there is no doubt." ;)
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Namaste,

I am sorry that I have not responded to any replies. I have been busy recently, so I have not had time to reply. I will reply shortly to each post individually. For now I just want to make some brief points, that will summarize my position:

I am not against the notion of Bhakti, which simply means love, single-minded dedication, total immersion. However, I am against a particular dogmatic interpretation of Bhakti as Bhakti in deity/, such as Krishna, Shiva and Vishnu and the sanction given to rituals like temple worship, puja, naam japa etc where the devotee immerses themselves in the worship of idol/gods. I have seen first-hand in India how this leads to childish mentality and bizarre ritualism, such as a in popular Hindu festival of Durga worship just prior to Diwali, where a little boy dressed as Ganesha comes in on the back of a man dressed like a rat, and the crowds throng to the boy to get his blessings and make monetary donations. Of course the kind of ritualism I have described is just a tip of the iceberg. There are temples built to worship rats, where the devotees worship idols of rats, eat left over food by the rats thinking it to be blessed. Millions bathe ever year in the toxic waters of the Ganga, thinking they are being purged of sin.

The reason I have disassocated myself from 'Hinduism' is because of this bizarre ritualism, that I am sorry to say is defining of contemporary Hinduism. It is prevalent very widely, that I would say it represents the vast majority of Hinduism today. Such that it is problematic for me to describe my religion as 'Hinduism' to somebody, because I certainly do not worship Krishna/Vishnu, Shiva or Durga/Kali, Hanuman, Ganesha or what have you. How I practice my religion is through study, contemplation, philosophy, meditation and bhakti to the self. Yes, the original meaning of Bhakti as enunciated in the Upanishads - devotion to the self, through constant meditation, contemplation and study. The Upanishads do not say build a temple with an idol of god, then go around the idol clockwise seven times, prostate 108 times to the idol, climb the temple stairs up and down 1000 times(in fact some of the rituals I have seen practiced)

For me such ritualism is superstitious and primitive and it is hard to imagine any enlightened culture in the universe practicing it. We certainly do not see temples built to worship gravity by scientists do we, or mythological representations of gravity? Then why do we need them for universal and abstract principles like Brahman, Maya and Atman etc? It really makes little sense to me. The way I see it our ancient Rishi scientists uncovered some universal principles in their meditations, then wrote about it and attempted to explain it, in prescientific language using metaphors, allegories, poetry etc. The same principles they described were later systematically and scientifically described in the Samkhya-Yoga system, using very technical terms like moolaprakriti meaning root or absolute matte, or chit vrriti meaning modifications/oscillations of the mind substance. Today, we use similar terms in modern science like quantum field, mental states, vibrations,

I have noted many Hindus oppose my highly scientific and rational reduction of Hinduism, accusing me of laking faith or bhakti or more sinister motives of reducing Hinduism into science and rendering the religion irrlevant. However, my reply to this is that I do indeed have bhakti, I have bhakti in science, rationaity and the scientific method and the universal principles of reality(dharma) It is due to my bhakti, conviction born of intense contemplation and philosophical investigations, that I meditate to realize my self. Basically what the Risis enjoined - 'Know the string within the string'

Hinduism to me is the earliest enunication of science, and hence why it stems from scriptures called 'Veda' knowledge. This is why one finds constantly throughout the Veda the enjoinment to cultivate ones intellect. Hence I see the modern scientist as a true Hindu. But I do not recognize the dogma of the bhaktas, that their path is just as valid or more valid/better/easier, simply because the Risis never taught it. It is a later fabrication during the Puanic age and is solidfied during the Bhakti movement.

Paradoxially, I do not actually deny that the Bhakas can attain the final goal of self-realization, there are many examples of bhaktas attaining the final state such as Guru Nanak, Kabir, St Franciss, Mirabhai, Ramakrishna. However, they attain this as biproduct of cultivating a single minded concentration, which reduces vritti activity and frees up more and more of consciousness. To a modern scientist, who understands of the science behind it, worshipping the state of consciousness would be silly. Premodern people not having a grasp of science, have invariably approached natural and unknown phenomena with emotional and mythological explanations, but why should modern Hindus living in the 21st century age of nanotechology?

To summarize: I think Hinduism has been hijacked by the Bhakti brigade, to such an extent, that it has become problematic to identify with it. My views are dissident because I do not recognize the path of Bhakti. I see it as primitive, superstitious and regressive. I am willing to open my mind and listen to why bhakti is necessary, why a Hindu living in the 21st century feels we should preserve it, and whether they agree that their worship of their deity is as valid as worshipping the flying spaghetti monster?
 

Pleroma

philalethist
My identification with 'Hinduism' was dealt a death blow when I started participating on the Hindu Dharma Forums, where I shared my own interpretations and views of Hinduism, which were considered offensive, threatening and dangerous, attracting derision and hostility and ultimately I was banned.

You may ask what were those views? My views are that Hinduism no longer represents what it is claims to be: Sanatana Dharma, the eternal religion or the eternal way, or even the scientific religion. Rather, Hinduism has become a geographical religion, preoccupied with Indian nationality(in fact, for many Hindu nationalists, India and Hinduism are inseparable) Indian traditions, history, languages, rituals and politics. So is there not an obvious contradiction that a religion that claims to be the eternal religion, is geographically bound?

If Hinduism really is Santana dharma then its truths need to be universal and not just specific to India, in the same way the truths of gravity are universal, not just specific to England where the concept of gravity was formalized. Hence, whatever is not universal cannot be considered an essential part of Sanatana dharma. Here is what is not universal: Indian geography, the pantheon of Indian deities, Indian languages, Indian traditions and rituals, Indian scriptures.

If Sanatana dharma is universal, then all enlightened cultures across the universe would have discovered it, but obviously they are not reading the Vedas, they do not speak Sanskrit, they do not worship Krishna, Shiva or Kali. They will have their own geography, languages, mythology, rituals and scriptures. Thus proving that geography, language, mythology, rituals and scriptures are not essential in Sanatana dharma. They are non-essential aspects and are subject to change.

However, despite the fact the aforementioned are not essential to Sanatana Dharma, Hindus behave like they are. I have been outright told by many Hindus pandits, swamis and gurus I met in my India travels, that I am not Hindu if I do not speak Hindi or Sanskrit, if I do not observe my caste regulations, if I do not wear a dhoti, if I do not have an Ishta Devata(Shiva, Krishna or Kali etc) if I do not observe Indian traditions.
I have been told similar dogmas in Vedantic traditions(seemingly the most enlightened) My knowledge of Vedanta is not valid if I do not learn from an authorized Vedanta guru, if I do not read the exact canon of scriptures, if I do not formally take sanyasa, shave my head and beg for alms.

So why should I accept something which is not even historically essential in my religion? Bhakta argue that there are historical precusors in earlier Hindu literature like the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita, but the Bhakti as enunciated there is radically different to the Bhakti which takes off in the Bhakti movement, and has since then dominated the landscape of Hinduism.
In the Upanishads Bhakti is seen as devotion to ones self, to always be contemplating on the self and to constantly meditate on the self and the essential nature of reality. In fact the Upanishads directly equate the self to the lord, it is the only scripture in the world that so radically equates ones self to god. Immortalized in the Upanishadic great sayings: Aham Brahamsmi, I am Brahman; Ayam Atma Brahma, My self is Brahman; Prajnana Brahma; Consciousness is Brahman.

Another irony is that in Hinduism itself the Upanishads comes under the category of Sruti meaning canonical, revealed texts. Then why are most Hindus not believing in and practicing what the Upanishads teach? Self inquiry, philsophical contemplation, meditation on the self? On the contrary Hindus today believe and pratice the Hinduism as enunciated in the Puranas or Puranic Hinduism, the Hinduism we all see - the worship of pantheon of gods, the legends and myths and rituals galore. It in such stark contrast to the enlightened religion of the Upanishads: Vedanta, which so many philosophers, visionaries and great minds have cherished from Shankara to Schopenhauer.

Technically, I am the real Hindu here, because I am practicing the original Vedanta. It is rich that the bhaktas should undermine my status as Hindu. I carry the weight of Sruti to back me up. I consider myself a real adherent of Santana Dharma, and the bhaktas I see as illegitimate children of it. I shall be forthright, that Bhakti to me is not valid Hinduism, and if Bhakti is what defines Hinduism today, then I would rather disown the label. The kind of primitive, superstitious and damn right silly rituals Hindus get up to in the name of Bhakti, are exactly what the Upanishadic seers rose up against. In fact the Upanishads contain very strong criticisms mocking the ritualist. The Chandogya upanishad contains a pardoy likening the ritualist to be like a procession of dogs chanting "Om! lets eat! Om! lets drink!" and even more damning passages are found in the Mundaka Upanishad calling rituals/sacrifices an unsafe boat that is overrtaken by old age and death.
Thus, the spirit of the Upanishads is opposed to ritual and superstition, and I am sure many of the seers of the Upanishads would be dismayed if they saw what Hinduism is today and share exactly my dissident views, which I intend to give expression to by writing in publications and maybe even writing my own book. I think my view, however inconveniant and offensive to the Hindu masses today, is a valid and justifiable view and deserves to be heard and discussed. Censorship of this view is directly opposed to the liberal philosophical culture of Hinduism, where even the heterodox views were honored and given due respect and consideration. It is shameful that Hindus at the Hindu dharma forum should have banned me for voicing a dissident view. I am confident that the same will not happen here, because this forum is more professional, liberal and open minded, and I doubt the moderators/admins here are Hindu nationalists.

To summarize my views:

1. Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, meaning it is the universal religion and therefore has no particular geography, language, tradition, pantheon, mythology, ritual and scriptures. One does not have to be born in India, or speak Indian languages, worship Krishna, Shiva or Durga, or even read the Vedas or the Gita to be Hindu. As long as they accept the philosophical tenets of the Upanishads they are Hindu. Therefore, one may even be Hindu without even having read the Upanishads.

2. The truths of Hinduism, because they are universal, can be discovered by any culture or any individual across the universe. The truths of Hinduism can also be found in other religions, such as Gnostic Christianity, Kabbalh, Sufism, Neo-Paganism. Hinduism is definitely not a uniquely Indian phenomenon and cannot define any nationality.

3. Puranic Hinduism and Bhakti is directly opposed to the doctrines of the Upanishads, which are considered the revealed scripture of Hinduism, they are therefore invalid corrupted forms of Hinduism. All Puranas are just a compendium of myths and legends compiled by various sects.

4. The only true Vedanta is of Advaita, the non-separation of soul and god. The later Vedantic schools like Dvaita and Visesvadvita were fabricated by medieval Bhakta theologians in order to rationalize their faith and Bhakti practices. All sorts of propoganda about Bhakti has been promulgated, how Bhakti is the only path in the Kaliyuga that is effective. It has lead to, in my opinion the destruction of the intellectual culture of India, and ultimately to the demise of Indian civilization. I predict Hinduism in its contemporary form, which I hold responsible for why India is such a fragmented country, will lead to demise of India altogether. Divided we fall, united we stand. I do not buy that India's diversity is such a good thing.

PS: Mods, I am not sure if this thread is considered 'Debate' If so, please redirect the thread where it is more appropriate.

I cannot agree any more with you. I am a born Hindu and the last thing I want is to label myself as a Hindu. There is no truth in the orthodox religions of the world. Most Indians really really don't know the importance of Vedas and Upanishads and are not even aware of the advancements made in modern science over the recent years and as to how some of their rituals are loaded with superstition. Not many have the real knowledge of performing those rituals.

Sanathana Dharma is not something which only belongs to the Indians or to the Hindus. It belongs to the people of the world, it belongs to everyone whether you're in Africa or in Australia. It is eternal divine wisdom. I don't know who Yajnavalkya was, I don't know who Basilides was, the founder of Gnosticism, he is not my uncle, they mean nothing to me and yet I back them up, why? Its because of what they taught and their highly philosophical and intellectual arguments about the nature of the divine and it baffles me still today.

India as a country as always preserved those eternal wisdom and it will continue do so and we all are 'One' and no one can divide us because the teaching of the Upanishads is Universal. The authors of the Upanishads did not put their names below their Upanishads because they did not made it up but instead they received it directly from the Gods.

Bhakti, Jnana and Vairagya all three things are important just following one thing rejecting the other will not suffice. Don't worry, I'm an optimist and we will bring back our Aryan culture which prevailed during the times of ancient India.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
The rites of the vedas, in their tamasika form became the rituals of the mimamsa.

However, the animal sacrifices you mention are a key part of the Vedas themselves. In their true (satvik) form, they are internal rites in which parts, animal qualities, of the 'partless Self' are sacrificed - antarayajna. This is preserved in the agamas. In their rajasic form, the animals are symbolically replaced by rice cakes, herbs ground and mixed in water, etc. and imbued with esoteric significance in the act.

As we have taken lead of the upanishads, the very opening of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad should clarify the nature of the Ashvamedha and indeed, other sacrifices as well.

I will expand on this in that larger post I promised.

I agree with your interpretations. There is of course no denying that in early Vedic times animals were literally sacrificed, and we can find clear instructions for the ritual sacrifices in the Brahmanas. In fact, this practice was common throughout the world in those times. This is why the early Veda should be considered an Old Testimant by the Hindus. In the New testimant of Vedanta the ritual sacrifices are reinterpreted in a philosophical and spiritual sense, in the same way as you suggest, the internal sacrifice of meditation.

You see for me Sanatana Dharma begins with the Vedanta. Vedanta is when the human being comes of age and becomes rational and spiritual, recognizing the divinity within themselves and bring the focus on the self. The transition from karma(ritual sense) to Jnana. I have already stated elsewhere, it is unfortunate that Hindus don't know their Vedanta, Hindu civilization would be so different otherwise. As many scholars have opined, Hindus degenerated over the times, going from the lofty heights of Jnana that they reached back to the primitive ritualism and sectarianism . Therein lies the reason for the demise of Hindu civilization.

If there is any hope of reviving Hindu civilisation, the torch of Vedanta needs to be reignited with the masses.
 
Top