What Makes a Hindu a Hindu?

[Aupmanyav]

Therefore, you will truly die. If there is no permanent identity, no permanent Atma (which is what Krishna is referring to when he says there is no birth or death - there is no birth or death for Atma, which is Brahman), then you are as good as the body, therefore when you die there is no more 'I'- no more identity. Thus how can you say you are the eternal Brahman? You are a speck of dust illumined by a momentary ray of light (sentience) and blown about by the winds of change and death. Read the thirtieth verse of the second chapter of the Gita from which you are quoting here. The topic of discussion is the embodied self, which is to say, the content of the word 'you', and this 'embodied' self is the Atma, which is eternal. It is the Atma which does not die. To simply say there is no birth or death at any time entirely ignores the context of the passage- the context is, there is no birth or death at any time for the Atma. In the vyavAharika realm, in the transactional world, there is indeed birth and death, and reincarnation. And Ishwara. And devas. And karma. And...

I am explaining to people who do not understand. When a person dies, his/her consciousness/personality also dies, that is an appearance and what is perceived to happen at the 'Vyavaharika' level. What does not die is what constitutes the person as well as all other things in the universe, i.e., Brahman. This is at the 'Paramarthika' level. What is difficult to understand in this? I am not even a speck of dust, I exist as 'Aupmanyav' (Amar Nath Reu) which is only illusion. At the 'Paramarthika' level, I am Brahman. "Embodied atman' is the erroneous perception of Brahman at the 'Vyavaharika' level. The birth and death in the transactional world are only appearances. Kindly read my post twice if you find difficulty in understanding it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You won. I accept defeat (which for one who follows BhagwadGita is the same as victory - "Sukha dukhe same kritva labhalabhou jayajayou ..")
Shantih, Shantih, Shantih.

 

[Makaranda]

I am explaining to people who do not understand. When a person dies, his/her consciousness/personality also dies, that is an appearance and what is perceived to happen at the 'Vyavaharika' level. What does not die is what constitutes the person as well as all other things in the universe, i.e., Brahman. This is at the 'Paramarthika' level. What is difficult to understand in this?

The consciousness of the person never dies (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 4.3.23) and is Brahman (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3).

Peace :bow:

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram aupmanyav ji :namaste

He has not mentioned himself as a Hindu on the profile page. As you know, I do not believe in reincarnation, but that does not make me a non-Hindu. If I am Brahman, then how could I die? Did not Lord Krishna say that there is no birth or death - "Na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchin" - There is neither birth nor death at any time. (BG 2.20)

has it for one moment crossed your mind that I asked said person what he thinks of reincarnation for a very good reason ..... like ...I was interested to hear his answer ???


also thank you , yes I know you dont belive in reincarnation....and at this moment I am not wishing to discuss your hinduness or non hinduness , but as you have brought it up again ....then Ok let us discuss it .... you have made it quite clear that you do nor beleive in any of the hindu gods , you do not belive in the efficacy of many hindu practices , you by your own admition do not beleive in reincarnation , you select from the yamas and niyamas only the bits you fancy to adhere to and dissregard the rest ...you apply the same selectivism with the Gita , you refer to the song of the lord as 'Mythology'....therefore I conscider you a Cultural Hindu , you follow the customs but you have no more interest in shastra than to refer to it as the Mythology of your Culture .

I am perfectly happy for you to do this but when you spout such noncence as ''I do not beleive in reincarnation '' in the same breath as quoting .......

''If I am Brahman, then how could I die? Did not Lord Krishna say that there is no birth or death - "Na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchin" - There is neither birth nor death at any time. (BG 2.20)''

then I am concerned ...

...Ok ...ABC Bhagavad gita for dummies .....

you do not die ! ...because you are not the material body , ....

Krsna also when speaking to Arjuna said , ..... ''I remember all by births , you do not ''....
thus acknowledging reincarnation , ...Krsna explains thus ...
''Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you , nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be . As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body , from boy hood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.'' ch ..2 v ..12/13

please note ...''passes to another body'' ... A sober person should not be bewildered by this nor should he deny this !!!


''O son of Kunti , the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course , are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons . They arise from sense perception , O son of Bharata , and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed .'' ch ,,2 v ..14

similarly I must tollerate this noncence and not become upset with people who are so blessed by birth as to be born in such a noble land , some one who was blessed to be reared as a Hindu , and blessed to read and converse in Sanskrit . ...such a fortunate birth ......

will aupmanyav ji be so fortunate as to get this birth again?

or do you deny rebirth so that you do not have to look honestly at this question?

yet because you are my brother I feel it my duty to try to wake you from your slumber and to try to allert you to to the foolishness of your ways ...

you are throwing away this precious human birth ....

''O best among men Arjuna , the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation.'' ...v ..15

he is also not affraid to look honestly at sri Krsna's words and contemplate the truth , further more he is not so proud as to not bow down in gratitude to the lord who reveals such knowledge ....

''Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] , there is no change . This they have concluded by studying the nature of both ...'' ch ..2 v ..16
please read this again ...

''Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] , there is no change .This they have concluded by studying the nature of both ...''

please , please , prabhu ji ... read this and do not discard it ....

now read this and read it again , then tell me can you realy reject reincarnation ?
If you reject this then you reject sri Krsnas words , by doing so you reject sri Krsna as he is nondifferent from his word .

But I do not think whatever we write is going to change his views. He comes here with an agenda.

please let us not asume what another is doing let us look at what we are doing ?

so , ... what about your mind , can we change your mind ?

can we make you lovingly bow down and thank Krsna for his illuminating words :bow:

 

[Ravi500]

But, IMO, this Vedantic teaching that "A knower of Brahman becomes Brahman" is not a knowledge (or at least not prominent) in any other religion, including Buddhism.

And there lies the source of tension, IMO.

Yes, actual religion consists of realization and experience, not mere mugging of bookish knowledge, which unfortunately some over here thinks is the only deal , missing true knowledge and understanding in the process. My own understanding now after my experience over here is that such book learning can even lead to delusionary states which one mixes with ones own personal fancies.

And this realization and experience,even at least a proper intellectual understanding of it, can be had only in the company of sages and saints , which is why satsang with the enlightened is greatly praised in Hinduism.

Here is a beautiful saying by Shankaracharya on the merits of Satsang....

When you are in good company, you are not in bad company.
When you are not in bad company, you don’t fall into delusion.
When you don’t fall into delusion, the mind becomes steady.
When the mind becomes steady, you are liberated.

-- Adi Shankaracharya

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Yes, actual religion consists of realization and experience, not mere mugging of bookish knowledge, which unfortunately some over here thinks is the only deal , missing true knowledge and understanding in the process. My own understanding now after my experience over here is that such book learning can even lead to delusionary states which one mixes with ones own personal fancies.

this is so perfectly true :namaste

And this realization and experience,even at least a proper intellectual understanding of it, can be had only in the company of sages and saints , which is why satsang with the enlightened is greatly praised in Hinduism.

and also through surrender , as without surrender one canot receive the true darshan either of the guru or the writen word ....
I appologise for keep saying this but for one who does not accept that both Krsna and his word are synonomous does not receive the full darshan , but one who bows down to the gita as he would to the lord receives the lords darshan through every word .

therefore one seeking to learn purely for the purpose of defeating ones oponents does not see the true oponent within , but one who uses knowledge to defeat the ego is the true victor ...

 

[zenzero]

Friend Aupmanyav,

Zenzero, even a rapist or a murderer is Brahman. Even Pot Pot and Osma, Hitler and Stalin, were none other than Brahman. But this is a question at 'Vyavaharika' level where a society has to be maintained and examples of good and bad behavior are to be considered. That is why Lord Rama was constrained to exile Mother Sita. Punishment for bad deeds is the 'dharma' of the ruler/guardians of the society, and there is no sin in doing that to safeguard the rest of the society. By being members of a society, they are under this obligation. If someone does not do it, then the person should face consequences, which of course in unfortunate for both, the individual and the society. I go by this view.

The point is yet again missed!
Society punishing someone is fine but we are discussing about being 'Hindu'.
Was Ram not Hindu when in the forest?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The consciousness of the person never dies (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 4.3.23) and is Brahman (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3). Peace :bow:

Point noted. Does it mean that I cannot differ?

@ Ratikala, kindly find me the word in BG 2.13 which means 'soul'. It is no use, Ratikala, we look at SrimadBhagawadGita from different viewpoints. To you it says something, to me it says something else. Kindly let us declare truce and leave it at that. The fact remains that we both love it equally. I have no problem with bowing down (spared of arthritis till now, can touch my toes with legs straight).

Verse 2.13 Synonyms:

dehinah — of the embodied; asmin — in this; yathā — as; dehe — in the body; kaumāram — boyhood; yauvanam — youth; jarā — old age; tathā — similarly; deha-antara — of transference of the body; prāptih — achievement; dhīrah — the sober; tatra — thereupon; na — never; muhyati — is deluded.

 

[atanu]

Point noted. Does it mean that I cannot differ?

Why not? Only a small change is required. A new school of aupAdvaita. :yes:

 

[Aupmanyav]

Krishna also when speaking to Arjuna said , .. ''I remember all by births , you do not '' ..

Lord Krishna was explaining things to someone who did not understand. Arjuna's education was completed only in the 18th Chapter, verse 73, when he said:

Arjuna uvācha:
"Naṣṭo mohah smitir labdhā, tvat-prasādān mayāchyuta;
sthito 'smi gata-sandehah, kariṣye vachanam tava."

Arjuna said: "By your mercy, my illusions have been dispelled, I have regained memory, O Achyuta (Krishna); (now) I have no doubts and will go by your advice."

The Lord dispelled my illusions also. Hare Krishna.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, actual religion consists of realization and experience, not mere mugging of bookish knowledge, which unfortunately some over here thinks is the only deal, missing true knowledge and understanding in the process.

Then why are people throwing scriptures at me? It is true that 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati'. That is why I say I am Brahman.

Society punishing someone is fine but we are discussing about being 'Hindu'. Was Ram not Hindu when in the forest?

I still miss your point, Zenzero.You see, Zenzero, the Indian population is reaching 1260 million. And the number of criminals also is high. We have to manage the society with our limited resources, and can't be over lenient with them, with no guarantee that some would ever change like the robber Ratnakara. It is not practical. Lord Rama also commited the mistake of killed Vali against the rules of fair warfare and paid for that by allowing Hunter Jara to mortally wound him in the Krishna avatara. That is what Hindu mythology says.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A new school of aupAdvaita. :yes:

Beg to differ. Advaita means what I have always said. How can there be a human (a jeeva) and a God, a duality? How can there be a jeeva and jada, a duality? IMHO, one who believes in existence of God is not an advaitist.

 

[Makaranda]

IMHO, one who believes in existence of God is not an advaitist.

From the standpoint of the world, God (Ishwara) exists. From the standpoint of the absolute, God is Brahman, as Brahman is the sole sat (existence) in all that is mithyA (dependent on existence). Hence, 'All things here are Brahman'-including God. In fact, there is a well known definition that Ishwara is Brahman + mAyA, Brahman seen or understood from the standpoint of mAyA, and so Ishwara is Brahman, essentially. Therefore, where is the room for atheism?


Perhaps the saying about an old dog is true...

 

[John Doe]

Beg to differ. Advaita means what I have always said. How can there be a human (a jeeva) and a God, a duality? How can there be a jeeva and jada, a duality? IMHO, one who believes in existence of God is not an advaitist.

Indeed.

BG 7:5

apareyam itas tv anyam
prakritim viddhi me param
jiva-bhutam maha-baho
yayedam dharyate jagat

Aupmanyav, you say that Brahman is energy, and you use the scientific model of the Big Bang in your theology. How do you relate the scientific use of the word 'energy' and para prakriti as referred to here ? The science of Big Bang does not include any concept of mind/awareness as foundational - awareness is considered as an emergent property much further down the track, so to speak - epiphenomenal, if considered at all.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why not both ... immanent and transcendent, separate, and together?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Aupmanyav,

I still miss your point, Zenzero.You see, Zenzero, the Indian population is reaching 1260 million. And the number of criminals also is high. We have to manage the society with our limited resources, and can't be over lenient with them, with no guarantee that some would ever change like the robber Ratnakara. It is not practical. Lord Rama also commited the mistake of killed Vali against the rules of fair warfare and paid for that by allowing Hunter Jara to mortally wound him in the Krishna avatara. That is what Hindu mythology says.

Committing mistake does not take you out of the fold of Hinduism.
The original point was that personal understanding is that Sanatana Dharma which is Hinduism is unlimited and encompasses all of humanity as Dharma simply means a 'way of life' and every one has his own way of life and since its all eternal without beginning or end it is sanatan and so there exists no limitations.

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Beg to differ. Advaita means what I have always said. How can there be a human (a jeeva) and a God, a duality? How can there be a jeeva and jada, a duality? IMHO, one who believes in existence of God is not an advaitist.

Ha ha. There is one who begs to differ.

IMO, you have no chance ever to know the Turiya atman-brahman (which as per scripture is to be known), since physical energy cannot know the physical energy. It is man, endowed with power of consciousness, that knows the physical energy etc. Further the Turiya advaita atman brahman is ungraspable, known through 'neti neti'. So, the brahman is nothing like physical energy.

 

[atanu]

Lord Krishna was explaining things to someone who did not understand. Arjuna's education was completed only in the 18th Chapter, verse 73, when he said:

Arjuna uvācha:
"Naṣṭo mohah smitir labdhā, tvat-prasādān mayāchyuta;
sthito 'smi gata-sandehah, kariṣye vachanam tava."

Arjuna said: "By your mercy, my illusions have been dispelled, I have regained memory, O Achyuta (Krishna); (now) I have no doubts and will go by your advice."

The Lord dispelled my illusions also. Hare Krishna.

You are wrong, IMO. Doubts are cleared first by darsana of kAla and then by samadhi. Please do not cherry pick. Is there any doubt that Gita advises worship in all modes karma, bhakti, and jnana?

 

[atanu]

Ha ha. There is one who begs to differ.

aupAdvaitA it is. We honour you with creation of a new school though it is evident that your agenda is imposition of aupAdvaita (which however is a cover for Lokayata) on Hindu dharma.

You have no chance ever to know the Turiya atman-brahman (which as per scripture is to be known), since physical energy cannot know physical energy. Further the Turiya advaita atman brahman is ungraspable, known through 'neti neti'. So, the brahman is nothing like physical energy.

Brahman that you are imposing on us is just your EGO THAT IS INCAPABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGING DEFEAT.

So aupAdvaita it is.

You are bluffing. Doubts are cleared first by darsana of kAla and then by samadhi. Read Gita fully and do not cherry pick.

Since you have already destroyed most current threads and since you are all the time claiming that you know the Brahman, we may thus wish to know:

1. How in your aupAdvaita, the awareness generated... at what stage?
2. How have you known the Brahman, since it is to be known by 'Neti-Neti'?​

 

[atanu]

-----IMHO, one who believes in existence of God is not an advaitist.

The non-dual Turia-Atman-Brahman is called Prabhuh in scripture. While dwelling in samsara as 'Jivan mukta' or as 'bonded labour of ego', Hinduism prescribes worship/adoration of the non-dual Atman pervading all Hearts. The jnani, the 'Jivan Mukata', does it without compulsion and the 'ego' is forced to it. Only in samAdhi there is no second. Shri Krishna teaches in Gita that the truth is known only in samAdhan mode.