What Makes a Hindu a Hindu?

[Poeticus]

No it is not. It is a request made well in time. We are here in 21st Century recording blimps from before the Big-Bang, replacing parts of skull by plastic models made by 3-D printers, trying to incorporate quatum computronics. Think what will happen in 22nd Century. I do not want Hindus to flaunder like Christians and Muslims and clinging to creationist crap. We have to move with science.

It's utterly and hopelessly ironic, Aup. There's nothing more to say on the
matter. There isn't really a wide-gap of a difference between fundamentalism
and militarism. You condemn fundamentalists, yet proclaim yourself as a
militant Hindu. That's the definition of irony, Aup. Lastly, this thing you call
"creationist crap" is not only uncalled for in the HinduDIR (it's a violation of
two to three forum rules), but it backtracks your own self-labeling of yourself
as a Hindu. The Vedas are that "creationist crap". After 71 years of living, one
would have thought that experience acquired from the years you have acquired
would have taught you humility and reason. Yet, it's nothing but drivel born
from an identity crisis. The only thing you cling onto is your ethno-racialist
reality of being a Kashmiri Pandit as your qualifier. Not only is it the weakest
qualifier, it is non-progressive for someone so science-minded.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

But you then equate physical energy, which is of the phenomenal level as signifier of brahman, as the brahman? How odd.

In short you are rejecting the basic sruti "prajnanan brahma" and asserting that consciousness has only physical origin. But there is no evidence of anything intelligent arising from matter.

Neti neti simply means that atman is not that which can be pointed as 'this'. After rejecting all graspable objects and thoughts what remains is atman ..

Energy exists at all levels, 'Parmarthika' or 'Vyavaharika'. It is what constitutes the universe. I disagree without any reservation that I do not accept 'Prajnanam Brahma'. Because I consider consciousness to arise from brain/matter. Even a cockroach has consciousness and fast reactions. If matter was not capable of producing intelligence, we would have been dumb fools. 'Neti, neti' may depend for particular things at particular times. Our knowledge is constantly expanding. Everything in the universe is 'self', there is nothing other than 'self'. That is advaita.

When unconscious, the brain is like a bulb with the switch off. Put the switch on, and it starts purring again.

 

[Ravi500]

Then why are people throwing scriptures at me?

The others over here have proper intellectual understanding through study of scriptures and adherence to it, though perhaps they have had no experential understanding.

You , on the other hand, have no experential understanding and no proper intellectual understanding as well, through your rejection of the scriptural teachings in favour of your own personal fancies.

And you also afterwards have started declaring yourself as 'enlightened' and 'Self-realized' which none else have done so as well, including Atanu who has a superb understanding of Vedanta. Thisis the height of delusion, in my opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

jai jai ,
then at last you understand the glorious nature of sraddha ,and I post a beautifull bhajan for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JGzXy4UiIOc#t=41

Thanks for the bhajan. As It goes, at one time, I liked 'Sri Rama Sharanam Mama'. Lord Rama is still my refuge as far as understanding of 'dharma' goes. 'Ramah Videhavan Dharmah' (Lord Rama is personification of 'dharma').

 

[Poeticus]

Thisis the height of delusion, in my opinion.

I would say that it is more the
heights of inconsistencies. Also,
don't forget: it's all "creationist
crap"*, even though, apparently,
Krishna "dispelled his allusions"**.
And, don't forget that after all
of his anti-theistic digressions,
he still states that "Lord Rama
is still his refuge"***.
______________
* post #462

** post #412

*** post #466​

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am discussing Aupmanyav's assertion here where he says: ..

Makaranda, you have your views. I have mine. And they do not match. So, what is the problem? Why don't you believe in freedom of belief (religion) - the first point in Vinayaka's list? Whatever, I believe, I have never accused any one for having views different from mine.

It's revealing because science primarily operates using two means of knowledge (pramAna) to gather data about the objective world and formulate models about it. These two means of knowledge are sense perception (pratyaksha) and inference (anumAna).

Makaranda, kindly be informed that some three thousands of years before us, Sage Kanada of the Vaisesika darshana also accepted only 'pratyaksha' and 'anumana' as 'pramana'. I am not the first.

 

[Poeticus]

Makaranda, you have your views. I have mine. And they do not match. So, what is the problem?

Then, let it be and move on. The only reason all of
these members are replying back to you is because
you keep arguing back with them. And, that's the
problem, Aup. I would hardly call that discussing Hinduism.​

 

[atanu]

It's utterly and hopelessly ironic, Aup. There's nothing more to say on the
matter. There isn't really a wide-gap of a difference between fundamentalism
and militarism. You condemn fundamentalists, yet proclaim yourself as a
militant Hindu. That's the definition of irony, Aup. Lastly, this thing you call
"creationist crap" is not only uncalled for in the HinduDIR (it's a violation of
two to three forum rules), but it backtracks your own self-labeling of yourself
as a Hindu. The Vedas are that "creationist crap". After 71 years of living, one
would have thought that experience acquired from the years you have acquired
would have taught you humility and reason. Yet, it's nothing but drivel born
from an identity crisis. The only thing you cling onto is your ethno-racialist
reality of being a Kashmiri Pandit as your qualifier. Not only is it the weakest
qualifier, it is non-progressive for someone so science-minded.​

This is beautiful. I, however, do not expect Aup. to even imagine that Vedas are the code of creation, when he is ignorant that the Vedas are the proof of the divine realm and the divine beings that not only are independent but which precede the samsarik manifestation.

Frubals.

 

[Poeticus]

Whatever, I belive, I have never accused any one for having views different from mine.

You have accused Hindu beliefs
as "creationist crap". That's quite
offensive, Aup. It really shouldn't
be this difficult to understand.​

 

[Ravi500]

... kindly find me the word in BG 2.13 which means 'soul'.

The Atman means Self.

However, the conditioned and bound Atman can be referred to as soul for easier and proper understanding, to distinguish it from the unconditioned and unbound Atman/Brahman.

It is with the dissolution of the ego through extinction of karma that the bound Atman or soul becomes unbound and merges in Brahman or Vishnu as per Advaita and Vishistadvaita.

The perspective of Jnana and Bhakti is accepted in Hindu Dharma.

However what is not accepted is the identification of the body with Atman, which you constantly harp.



Fools, because they lack in their powers of discrimination superimpose on the Atman, the Absolute-Existence-Knowledge (Sat-Chit), all the varied functions of the body and the senses, just as they attribute blue colour and the like to the sky.

-- Adi Shankaracharya

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Atman means Self.

Do you realize that BG 2.13 does not contain the word 'atman'? Go, read the verse again. Surprised at what all **** you people write.

 

[Ravi500]

Do you realize that BG 2.13 does not contain the word 'atman'? Go, read the verse again.

And I did not make this reference with respect to BG 2.13, but to your repugnance to the word 'soul' , and also for your fancy to identify the body with Atman.

 

[Poeticus]

Do you realize that BG 2.13 does not contain the word 'atman'? Go, read the verse again. Surprised at what all **** you people write.

Aup, 2.13 does not need to contain
the Sanskrit word for "soul" for it
to speak about the soul. Here's what
the Gaudiya-s have translated:​

"As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body,
from boyhood to youth to old age,
the soul similarly passes into another body at death.
A sober person is not bewildered by such a change."
source
​

 

[Makaranda]

Makaranda, you have your views. I have mine. And they do not match. So, what is the problem? Why don't you believe in freedom of belief (religion) - the first point in Vinayaka's list? Whatever, I belive, I have never accused any one for having views different from mine.Makaranda, kindly be informed that some three thousands of years before us, Sage Kanada of the Vaisesika darshana also accepted only 'pratyaksha' and 'anumana' as 'pramana'. I am not the first.

Are you a vaisheshika-vAdin or an advaita-vAdin?

I have never accused any one for having views different from mine

There's no accusations; what's the problem with explaining and discussing how our views differ? In fact you insist again and again that your views are different. I am just making clear why that is, and in the process trying to steer the discussion back to the topic of the OP. You are most welcome to whatever you believe, Aupmanyav, and I've never said otherwise. That you seem to be well entrenched in your beliefs to the detriment of your capacity to objectively examine and critique them in light of helpful criticism from other members of the DIR is somewhat disappointing, but not particularly surprising. As I said before, what they say about an old dog seems to be true.

 

[atanu]

Aup. my namaste and my last rejoinder to you. Many have already noted, and correctly IMO, that we are spoiling the Hinduism Dir.

...You misunderstand me once again. 'Atman' (this self) still is Brahman. "Ayamatma Brahma', so said our books. Now we know a little more about it.The truth does not change, whether it is in 'Parmarthika' level or 'Vyavaharika' level. What changes is our way of looking at it.

To comprehend ayamAtma brahma, one must first know/experience the atman. My request is that do not trivialise and demean the knowledge of the Vedas and the Upanishads by saying that the sensual organs (that come into being because of the Atman), can know that Atman. It is like saying that the characters in a novel know their author. In other words: The physical brain and the physical organs do not know but the Atma knows and sees. I hope that you know this from Kena Up.

IMO, you are being childish and I sincerely feel that you are suffering from delusion of grandeur that you have known atman and brahman (that are beneath all thought forms). You do not even have the intellectual appreciation of the advaitic teaching of adhyAsa (superposition) and claim that the inert material is intelligent. How can you even intellectually appreciate 'ayamatma brahma'? You do not have appreciation of the sheaths that veil the atma. How can you know the atma?


Do not trivialise and demean the knowledge of the Vedas and the Upanishads that many of the greatest scientists revere.

Bye. I wish you best. I have no further interest to talk to you.

 

[atanu]

I see the humour.

Oh good. As you might imagine, my original OP so many months ago was not intended at the likes of Aup, but more the neos here in the west ......

Don't do this. You will make me (and may be some others) feel that you are probably counting 'me' as a Neo. So, please specify precisely the Neos in your list. Who are the Neo Gurus?

Maybe its inevitable when the focus is philosophy. I prefer discussing and sharing practices, like temple experiences, pilgrimage, what kind of incense you like ...

Well. As Amartya Sen observed "Argumentative Indians". But, in more serious mode: Indian darsana has placed heavy emphasis on dialectical discourses. And the yajna of knowledge is considered a valid yajna.

There is a man in our city who legally changed his name to God. He isn't fooling anyone other than himself, and not too many people care. It is a free country.

Ya. This is were we, the argumentative types, went wrong. We thought that the God delusion was curable through rational dialectal dialog. Ya. This was wrong.
:sorry1:

 

[John Doe]

Do you realize that BG 2.13 does not contain the word 'atman'? Go, read the verse again. Surprised at what all **** you people write.

I am sorry that my question to you regarding BG 7:5 has resulted in such acrimony. Yes, I know that there is a simmering tension between your good self and others here apart from the controversy and the alleged 'checkmate' which followed upon that question. But it seems that the 'simmering' became 'boiling over' at that point in the thread.

From my perspective, it would be interesting to hear the way others on this forum interpret that sloka, since no-one has.

I would like to hear from everyone else what it means when Krishna says that sentient beings (such as you and I and Poeticus and Atanu and yes, even Justin Beiber - ALL sentient beings) are Krishna's para prakriti - the superior energy.

Particularly, I would like to here how folk on this forum resolve the combination of that sloka and BG 18:66 " Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. "

If the superior energy of the Lord is beings such as ourselves, and we should "surrender all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me" - what exactly is it we are being asked to do ? Because generally in contemporary discussion the individual entities are considered as mere illusion, yet here Krishna states unequivocally that sentient beings are His superior energy.. What does that mean ?

I will create a thread to open up this discussion. I would appreciate some advice from others as to which section of the forums is most suitable for such a discussion.

 

[atanu]

I will create a thread to open up this discussion. I would appreciate some advice from others as to which section of the forums is most suitable for such a discussion.

The same faith debate forum, i think. Thread title may be " For Hindus: Gita ..........", for example.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am sorry that my question to you regarding BG 7:5 has resulted in such acrimony.

Kindly note that I was replying to Ravi's post. Many a times, people insert words in translation which are not there in the original. Prabhupada does this regularly. But that is a sectarian approach.

And I did not make this reference with respect to BG 2.13, but to your repugnance to the word 'soul' , and also for your fancy to identify the body with Atman.

'Atman' is 'self', Ravi. It does not necessarily render to 'soul'. Am I not pained when the body is hurt? Is it not my 'self'? 'Atman' has also been used for 'mine' in Gita as in 'atmani'.

The Vedas are that "creationist crap".

Vedas are not 'creationist crap'. Nasadiya Sukta holds true even after (at least) 3,000 years. That is real insight.

Here's what the Gaudiya-s have translated:

That would be true for Guadiyas only. It would not be true for Kashmir Shaiva-Siddhantis.

Are you a vaisheshika-vAdin or an advaita-vAdin?

No. I am not a Vaisesika, but just as they had the freedom to choose their 'pramanas', I too have the same freedom. I accept these two, do not accept others. Vaisesikas accepted 'Sabda' as 'anumana'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. that the sensual organs (that come into being because of the Atman), can know that Atman.

Bye. I wish you best. I have no further interest to talk to you.

Sensual organs and brain/mind. There is no other way to know anything. Of course, I understand your disinterest in talking to me. You said that earlier also.

And the yajna of knowledge is considered a valid yajna.

Surely, they were fine men. Do you think it is false today?