-
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
- Thread starter Surya Deva
- Start date
The ideal of Bhakti is absolute humility. The ideal bhakta is so secure in his/her devotion that no criticism can bring emotional pain, nor are jeers because of it harmful. This person wishes no ill on anyone, and "spreads the message" not through preaching, lectures, books, etc., but simply through living.
If a bhakta becomes a fanatic, that person needs a lot more maturing to do, because such reactions are indicative of a mind that has not fully matured out of childhood.
If a bhakta becomes a fanatic, that person needs a lot more maturing to do, because such reactions are indicative of a mind that has not fully matured out of childhood.
Maya3
Well-Known Member
Trust me: such assumptions are never wise.
Exactly. Assuming things and then analyzing people based on an assumption tells more about the person who is assuming then the other person.
Maya
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Religion without philosophy is sentimentalism. Sometimes fanaticism.
Philosophy without religion is mental speculation.
Philosophy without religion is mental speculation.
Maija
Active Member
Oooh.. I like that where is that from?
I may have to recycle that quote..
:yes:
Very insightful
Another problem is that sometimes a strong disagreement with a certain position can come across as fanaticism, or be misinterpreted as such, when it's not.
The belief that "my way is the right way" is not necessarily fanatical. Fanatical would be more like "I'll DESTROY you if you dare even THINK my way is not correct!"
The belief that "my way is the right way" is not necessarily fanatical. Fanatical would be more like "I'll DESTROY you if you dare even THINK my way is not correct!"
Maija
Active Member
True...although I think that not all religious fanatics need to have violent tendencies. We need to be careful when we throw around that word because of certain connotations out there and the link between fanaticism and violence/terrorism but I believe that there are many non violent fanatics out there.
Quick Self confession: Once, during a "born again Christian" phase in high school, I talked to my Catholic but very liberal mother, about small Hindu/Buddhist religious representations and Hindu bhajans. I told her she should get rid of them, she refused so I sneakily threw them away. I wouldn't say that was a violent act, but I would say it was an act motivated by a slightly fanatical spirit! I couldn't tolerate her NOT being on the same page about this as I was.
Just some thoughts..
You're right, even my violent example represents a more extreme form of it. Perhaps "unreasonable" would be a more accurate word to describe the bulk of such actions.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
I disagree, it is basic human nature to assume things. In fact, even scientific theories are based on assumptions. We can only have a working knowledge, because we cannot have absolute knowledge, so we have to infer things from as much as we can observe. I don't know you in real life, and the chances are ill know you, all I can ever know about you, your attitudes, beliefs, personality is from what you post on this forum. So I am going to make certain assumptions about you. Nothing personal, you can always me correct me if I am wrong
People make assumptions about me too, I don't hold that against them, I just correct them and put the record straight.So what do you believe then?
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Religion without philosophy is sentimentalism. Sometimes fanaticism.
Philosophy without religion is mental speculation. --- A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmi Prabhupāda
Maya3
Well-Known Member
I disagree, it is basic human nature to assume things. In fact, even scientific theories are based on assumptions. We can only have a working knowledge, because we cannot have absolute knowledge, so we have to infer things from as much as we can observe. I don't know you in real life, and the chances are ill know you, all I can ever know about you, your attitudes, beliefs, personality is from what you post on this forum. So I am going to make certain assumptions about you. Nothing personal, you can always me correct me if I am wrong
So what do you believe then?
I understand that, but if you look through the thread, you have made a lot of comments about people being brainswashed, swallowing dogma of Bhakti, Deva fanaticism, being weak Advaitins etc. That is what I take offense to, disagreeing and discussing is completely fine. As are asking questions about peoples practice.
As for my practice? I'm Advaitin, my practice is meditation, Chanting, studying.
And do you know what? Performing a puja and some chanting settles the mind, it can bring you to focus a lot faster, then just sitting down after running around doing everything you do every day.
Maya
gayatri007
New Member
I can give historical aspect to Bhakti movement. From 13th century till 18th century- India was under Islamic rule and 18th -now, neo western rule.
Now, we don't need to read about brutality associated with Islamic conquests- around 10,000 temples & were destroyed in 300 years -as Idolatry is banned in Islam. India was under Sharia which doesn't let new temples to be built, repair of old temples, or open preaching of religion.
Major massacres were faced by Kshatiryas - military class and Temple Brahmins.. And on top of that, massive conversion drive , financial incentives to convert to Islam..
Hindus/ original inhabitant were reduced to second class citizens, not free to practice religion, no royal patronage necessary for Spriritual / scientific growth, -no surprise that last scientific knowledge india produced was in 13th centrury..after that ..all silent.
Bhakti was response to this regressive environment.. that in absence of elaborate rituals, brahmins helping you, one can still remember His name by just chanting alone... Surdas, Tulsidas came in this time period only
Now, we don't need to read about brutality associated with Islamic conquests- around 10,000 temples & were destroyed in 300 years -as Idolatry is banned in Islam. India was under Sharia which doesn't let new temples to be built, repair of old temples, or open preaching of religion.
Major massacres were faced by Kshatiryas - military class and Temple Brahmins.. And on top of that, massive conversion drive , financial incentives to convert to Islam..
Hindus/ original inhabitant were reduced to second class citizens, not free to practice religion, no royal patronage necessary for Spriritual / scientific growth, -no surprise that last scientific knowledge india produced was in 13th centrury..after that ..all silent.
Bhakti was response to this regressive environment.. that in absence of elaborate rituals, brahmins helping you, one can still remember His name by just chanting alone... Surdas, Tulsidas came in this time period only
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Very relevant, crisp and correct information on the last few decades historical aspect of Bhakti movement in India. Thank you for sharing.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Bhakti flourished way before the Muslims invaded India. Temple and idol worship of gods/goddesses were already prevalent across India. I think one of the reasons that India fell was due to all this madcap bhakti, because it lead to massive fragmentation of India, that Indian kingdoms then started to fall gradually to a united Muslim force, because other Indian kingdoms did not care for them. India has always been a highly divided country, but history shows whenever it has united, it has been formidable, that even great armies of Alexandra the Great could not subdue it, and turned back.
I hold bhakti as responsible for the total fragmentation and eventual destruction of India and Hindu civilization.
Dude, history is NEVER that simple.
Maija
Active Member
I'm reading both As it Is and the BG by Eknath Easwaran, to see if I can spot the differences. Sometimes, such polar opposites of responses, people seem to either love or disprect Prabhupada, because of that I had to find out for myself.
Much love..haribol !
have a good nite
Last edited:
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Bhakti is as old as Sanātana Dharma.
5000 years ago, Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavat Gītā spoke of Bhakti Yoga as a path to achieve Him. In the Bhagavat Gītā itself, Kṛṣṇa declares to Arjuna that this knowledge (of Bhagavad Gītā was spoken by Him to Sun God, which got lost in time. So, He is again speaking it to him.
The Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvān, and Vivasvān instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikṣvāku. [B.G. 4.1]
At the present moment we have just passed through five thousand years of the Kali-yuga, which lasts 432,000 years. Before this there was Dvāpara-yuga (800,000 years), and before that there was Tretā-yuga (1,200,000 years). Thus, some 2,005,000 years ago, Manu spoke the Bhagavad-gītā to his disciple and son Mahārāja Ikṣvāku, the king of this planet earth. The age of the current Manu is calculated to last some 305,300,000 years, of which 120,400,000 have passed. Accepting that before the birth of Manu the Gītā was spoken by the Lord to His disciple the sun-god Vivasvān, a rough estimate is that the Gītā was spoken at least 120,400,000 years ago; and in human society it has been extant for two million years. It was respoken by the Lord again to Arjuna about five thousand years ago. That is the rough estimate of the history of the Gītā, according to the Gītā itself and according to the version of the speaker, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
5000 years ago, Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavat Gītā spoke of Bhakti Yoga as a path to achieve Him. In the Bhagavat Gītā itself, Kṛṣṇa declares to Arjuna that this knowledge (of Bhagavad Gītā
was spoken by Him to Sun God, which got lost in time. So, He is again speaking it to him.śrī-bhagavān uvāca
imaḿ vivasvate yogaḿ
proktavān aham avyayam
vivasvān manave prāha
manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt
imaḿ vivasvate yogaḿ
proktavān aham avyayam
vivasvān manave prāha
manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt
The Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvān, and Vivasvān instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikṣvāku. [B.G. 4.1]
At the present moment we have just passed through five thousand years of the Kali-yuga, which lasts 432,000 years. Before this there was Dvāpara-yuga (800,000 years), and before that there was Tretā-yuga (1,200,000 years). Thus, some 2,005,000 years ago, Manu spoke the Bhagavad-gītā to his disciple and son Mahārāja Ikṣvāku, the king of this planet earth. The age of the current Manu is calculated to last some 305,300,000 years, of which 120,400,000 have passed. Accepting that before the birth of Manu the Gītā was spoken by the Lord to His disciple the sun-god Vivasvān, a rough estimate is that the Gītā was spoken at least 120,400,000 years ago; and in human society it has been extant for two million years. It was respoken by the Lord again to Arjuna about five thousand years ago. That is the rough estimate of the history of the Gītā, according to the Gītā itself and according to the version of the speaker, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
Last edited:
I'm reading both As it Is and the BG by Eknath Easwaran, to see if I can spot the differences. Sometimes, such polar opposites of responses, people seem to either love or disprect Prabhupada, because of that I had to find out for myself.
Much love..haribol !
have a good nite
I, personally, don't hate the guy, nor do I love him. I respect him as a Sage of bhakti, though I find much of his philosophy, at least what I've seen of it, seriously flawed.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
I'm reading both As it Is and the BG by Eknath Easwaran, to see if I can spot the differences. Sometimes, such polar opposites of responses, people seem to either love or disprect Prabhupada, because of that I had to find out for myself.
Much love..haribol !
have a good nite
Have a good night!
Haribol!