What Makes a Hindu a Hindu?

[atanu]

Friend Aupmanyav,

Committing mistake does not take you out of the fold of Hinduism.
..
Love & rgds

I support your view here. Shri Krishna says even a great sinner who has placed the faith on That-Him has resolved correctly.

Further, in Hinduism IMO, there is no concept of sin but there is ignorance that impels one towards the actions that generate what society may call sin.

As per Gita, and as far as I can understand, the only real sin that Shri Krishna points out is the 'hardness of Heart -- lack of compassion'.

However, it is also true that the very fundamental of successful yoga is yama-niyama and 'Ishwara puja' is a crucial aspect of that. So, on this aspect also, Shri Aup.'s thinking is erroneous and IMO, does not correspond to any school of Hindu Dharma.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"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.

John, besides 'is utilized and exploited', there is another meaning of 'dharyate' (from Vedabase itself) and that is 'sustained'. If I use that meaning, the verse translates as:

"Besides the inferior energy of material nature, there is another superior energy of mine in form of living entities by whom this world is sustained."

Both the energies are of Krishna, but he counts living entities as the form of superior energy, perhaps because they are sentient.

A difficult verse for my views, and thanks for that. At the moment, I will leave it at that. Arjuna was yet a unenlightened person. His enlightenment came very late in Gita (18.73). Perhaps, that is why Krishna said this.

 

[atanu]

:

"Besides the inferior energy of material nature, there is another superior energy of mine in form of living entities by whom this world is sustained."

...)

And who will know this higher energy?

Kindly re-contemplate on Mandukya Up. and Nasadiya sukta together. You will see that Nasadiya rejects everything but the Seer. Similarly, the deep sleep state will never be known as 'blissful', if there were no Seer of that state of consciousness.

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.[9]​

There is a question mark on whether he created/fashioned the universe or not? But there is no question about the Seer of the highest heaven.

 

[Sumit]

"Besides the inferior energy of material nature, there is another superior energy of mine in form of living entities by whom this world is sustained."

One superior and other inferior, that doesn't seem like Advaita.

 

[atanu]

One superior and other inferior, that doesn't seem like Advaita.

He is naming prakriti-nature as energy. Prakriti is not the Being but its nature, IMO. So, no problem with advaita.

 

[Sumit]

He is naming prakriti-nature as energy. Prakriti is not the Being but its nature, IMO. So, no problem with advaita.

These two lines Went off my head. I know one prakriti which is material cause and other is prakrati which means nature of individual {if see acc to dvaitya}, since it's about advaita, what is prakati you refer here 1 or 2 and if both are same than how?? if he term prakrati as energy than isn't it real acc to him as he believe only energy as brahman and real alone, so how can be one superior and other inferior when both are same brahman. :sorry1:

 

[atanu]

.... if he term prakrati as energy than isn't it real acc to him as he believe only energy as brahman and real alone, so how can be one superior and other inferior when both are same brahman. :sorry1:

Yes. You have got him on this.

 

[Ravi500]

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, how is this above post of yours, related to what Ratikala says below....

Krsna also when speaking to Arjuna said , ..... ''I remember all my 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 !!!

Through your rejection of Krishna's teachings on reincarnation, you are actually stating that Krishna's teachings are false, and yours are true.

How can you still keep quoting Krishna, which one understands is but for promoting your own atheistic-materialistic objectives and sophist arguments lacking substance whatsoever !!

And after all this, you have the nerve to say, "The Lord dispelled my illusions also."

Talk about lack of intellectual honesty....

 

[Ravi500]

...if he term prakrati as energy than isn't it real acc to him as he believe only energy as brahman and real alone, so how can be one superior and other inferior when both are same brahman.

Yes. You have got him on this.

Yeah, I believe Sumit has checkmated him on this .

 

[Poeticus]

Talk about lack of intellectual honesty....

The contents of his posts are also highly
inconsistent. One minute they're theistic.
The next, they're not.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

And who will know this higher energy?

I believe that there are not two kinds of energies but just one. (This is for Sumit too)

The contents of his posts are also highly inconsistent. One minute they're theistic. The next, they're not.

I know it is difficult for you to understand. I may be an atheist, but I am still a Hindu. What Hindus believe, even if it does not match with my views is respectable for me. Even Tantra and Aghor or whatever, Yelamma or Bahuchara Mata. (This is for Ravi too)

You still in the winning/loosing mode. Grow up.

 

[Sumit]

I believe that there are not two kinds of energies but just one. (This is for Sumit too).

Isn't this what you said??

"Besides the inferior energy of material nature, there is another superior energy of mine in form of living entities by whom this world is sustained."

 

[atanu]

I believe that there are not two kinds of energies but just one. (This is for Sumit too)I know it is difficult for you to understand. I may be an atheist, but I am still a Hindu. What Hindus believe, even if it does not match with my views is respectable for me. Even Tantra and Aghor or whatever, Yelamma or Bahuchara Mata. (This is for Ravi too)

You still in the winning/loosing mode. Grow up.

Ha elder brother. It is difficult keeping pace with your shifting goalposts.

You believe in a physical energy as brahman. I say that then there is no scope for you or anyone to know brahman. This difficulty of yours and of materialistic Buddhists is same... How the Nirvana can be discerned is not explained.

The problem is that once they acknowledge that the substratum was prajnana, they would have to accept a possibility of an intelligent Being higher than their ego being. The atheists are loathe to give a higher status to anyone.

You are also similarly repeatedly distorting the teachings of sruti, gita, Shankara, and Ramana.

I asked two questions. You may wish to answer those.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Isn't this what you said??

No, this is not my view. It is something that Krishna has said in BhagawadGita. My explanation of the verse was this:

A difficult verse for my views, and thanks for that. At the moment, I will leave it at that. Arjuna was yet a unenlightened person. His enlightenment came very late in Gita (18.73). Perhaps, that is why Krishna said this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ha elder brother. It is difficult keeping pace with your shifting goalposts.

You believe in a physical energy as brahman. I say that then there is no scope for you or anyone to know brahman. .. How the Nirvana can be discerned is not explained.

The problem is that once they acknowledge that the substratum was prajnana, they would have to accept a possibility of an intelligent Being higher than their ego being. The atheists are loathe to give a higher status to anyone.

You are also similarly repeatedly distorting the teachings of sruti, gita, Shankara, and Ramana.

I asked two questions. You may wish to answer those.

This is for the reason that you do not read my posts carefully before you want to comment on them. I have always said that we know a little about energy (i.e., physical energy), and I am sure in future we are going to know more about it with the help of science. I do not know if we would be able to reach the ultimate truth and how far it may be. I am not a najoomi (one who knows future) or a prophet. I cannot say that we will certainly find the ultimate truth, though the possibility exists. For the same reason, I do not accept a statement that the ultimate truth would never be known.

Enlightenment does not require one to know all things. We can know only what is possible to know at any period of time. One who has understood what is known in his time has achieved enlightenment/nirvana/moksha which is absence of questions agitating the mind. That is peace. I do not see any proof of the existence of an intelligent being that is why I do not accept it. Atheists do not give their ignorance the name of God. The teachings of Shruti, Gita, Sankara, and Ramana are guides. I am extremely thankful for them. It is them which have brought me to this point. But nowhere in Hinduism is a ban on differing views. Hinduism is not foolishism. I have better regard for Hinduism than that.

 

[atanu]

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'?​

This is for the reason that you do not read my posts carefully before you want to comment on them. I have always said that we know a little about energy (i.e., physical energy), and I am sure in future we are going to know more about it with the help of science. I do not know if we would be able to reach the ultimate truth and how far it may be. I am not a najoomi (one who knows future) or a prophet. I cannot say that we will certainly find the ultimate truth, though the possibility exists. For the same reason, I do not accept a statement that the ultimate truth would never be known.

Enlightenment does not require one to know all things. We can know only what is possible to know at any period of time. One who has understood what is known in his time has achieved enlightenment/nirvana/moksha which is absence of questions agitating the mind. That is peace. I do not see any proof of the existence of an intelligent being that is why I do not accept it. Atheists do not give their ignorance the name of God. The teachings of Shruti, Gita, Sankara, and Ramana are guides. I am extremely thankful for them. It is them which have brought me to this point. But nowhere in Hinduism is a ban on differing views. Hinduism is not foolishism. I have better regard for Hinduism than that.

No elder brother. As per hindu scripture, the brahman that sees and knows cannot be known by a third party through use of sense-mind based knowledge. That would be direct contradiction of the advaita that you are preaching. It will be brahman as an object known by a scientist as another. It is plain foolish to call that advaita. It is denigration of all scripture. Neti neti means that the so called scientist and his science are discarded.

It is you who are not paying attention to what all of us are saying. You think that karma will not attach? It will attach to your ego soul for denigrating the Seers. This is my my considered opinion.

If you wish, you may enlighten us of Aupadvaita by answering to the two questions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It will be brahman as an object known by a scientist as another .. Neti neti means that the so called scientist and his science are discarded.

Discard science and you fall into darkness. No Hindu should do that. Many things were 'neti, neti' at one time which became known later. I do not want Hindus to end up like fundamentalist Christians or Muslims.

 

[Makaranda]

Discard science and you fall into darkness. No Hindu should do that. Many things were 'neti, neti' at one time which became known later. I do not want Hindus to end up like fundamentalist Christians or Muslims.

I don't think atanu was suggesting what you're implying here. He's not saying discard science altogether, only that science can't be the means of knowledge for knowing Brahman.

Hypothetically speaking, if a scientist, using an extremely advanced microscope detects a sub-atomic, quantum particle which seems to have consciousness in some way, then, even then according to the commonly accepted view it cannot be called Brahman, since Brahman can't be located or objectified in that way. A quantum particle has form, and is an object knowable to sense perception. Brahman has no form and can't be perceived by the senses, as it is the very content of the knowing subject. In other words, Brahman cannot be detectable to any empirical instrument of knowledge, since it is always the real identity of the one wielding the instrument. You can't see yourself under a microscope, as you are the subject and whatever you see is an object. Therefore, we have to say not this to the quantum particle, also.

I don't think anybody is promoting anti-scientific or fundamentalist views here. I have no issue with science. There's no clash between accepting science and being Hindu, in my opinion. I just don't think they should or need to be mixed up.

 

[Sumit]

No, this is not my view. It is something that Krishna has said in BhagawadGita.

Arjuna was yet a unenlightened person. His enlightenment came very late in Gita (18.73). Perhaps, that is why Krishna said this.

So acc to you Krishna perhaps lied to Arjuna because Arjuna was unenlightened person at that time?? And your definition of Brahman is still incomplete, you believe everything as Brahman but says brahman is not conscious, so what is consciousness, an illusion??

 

[Poeticus]

...aupAdvaita...

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

But...

Wouldn't "aupAdvaita" mean:

of + apa + advaita =

of + away from + advaita ?

If so...it's a consistent application
for categorizing those inconsistencies.

moving away from advaita​