Why Won't You Let me Be Hindu?

[Satyamavejayanti]

"wizanda,"

Namaste,

Now i will only respond to your reply, and will not read the other posts, so if something is already been clarified/discussed, i do apologise for the repeat.

The third eye Yantra from Shiva is the Star of David; therefore it could be a possibility the whole Hebraic religion is a manifestation from Shiva, to remove those demons who seek salvation, yet don't recognize the ultimate Source of reality.

Does not answer my question, of why "Accepting the Bible as Lila shouldn't make someone not a Hindu... ..".

So if someone does not accept the Bible as "Lila", is that person still a Hindu?

Heaven is a place of pure consciousness, thus what we expect to perceive can become manifest; so to begin saw the most beautiful ethereal king on a throne one could possibly imagine, yet this was only a perception, thus asked to see the true reality, which was more like a CPU processing the whole of reality.
Because on studying Hindu texts the descriptions fit... Plus this was the manifestor of reality, there is not two; like there is not multiple religions.

I don't understand, were you different from this Brahman? if not then how could you tell that this "ethereal", "CPU Processor", "which Manifests reality", was Brahman?

As saying saw both; Brahman as expected, and Brahman beyond all perception.

How could you perceive "Nirguna", or that which is beyond perception?

Don't say Namaste, if you do not mean it please.

Namaste is salutations to the Divine Atman within, not salutations to Ideas, beliefs, ego, Avatar, knowledge, God or ignorance.

Get up each morning, and start with Bhakti (Devotion) on waking,

Bahkti to which Devi/Devta?, and how do you perform this? for How long?

....move onto Jnana (Higher Conscious Discernment) as soon as waking up

Wait a freeking minute, You DO Jnana AS SOON as WAIKING UP>>>>>
Now this is a freeking achievement, because this is the basic understanding of Jnana, below;

Jnana Yoga: The Yoga of Wisdom

"The Four Pillars of Knowledge(sadhana chatushtaya) are the prescribed steps toward achieving liberation in Jnana Yoga."

Viveka (discernment, discrimination) is a deliberate, continuous intellectual effort to distinguish between the real and the unreal, the permanent and the temporary, and the Self and not-Self.

Vairagya (dispassion, detachment) is cultivating non-attachment or indifference toward the temporal objects of worldly possessions and the ego mind. “It is only when the mind is absolutely free from the attachment of all sorts that true knowledge begins to dawn.” – Swami Sivananda.

Shatsampat (six virtues) are six mental practices to stabilize the mind and emotions, and to further develop the ability to see beyond the illusions of maya.
• Shama (tranquility, calmness) is the ability to keep the mind peaceful, through moderating its reaction to external stimuli.
• Dama (restraint, control) is the strengthening of the mind to be able to resist the control of the senses, and the training of the senses to be used only as instruments of the mind.
• Uparati (withdrawal, renunciation) is the abandonment of all activities that are not one’s Dharma (Duty). A simple lifestyle is followed that contains no worldly distractions from the spiritual path.
• Titiksha (endurance, forbearance) is the tolerance of external non-conducive situations that are commonly considered to produce suffering, especially in extreme opposite states (success and failure, hot and cold, pleasure and pain).
• Shraddha (faith, trust) is a sense of certainty and belief in one’s guru (teacher), the scriptures and the yogic path.
• Samadhana (focus, concentration) is the complete one-pointedness of the mind.

Mumukshutva (longing, yearning) is an intense and passionate desire for achieving the liberation from suffering. In order to achieve liberation one must be completely committed to the path, with such longing that all other desires fade away.

You do this while getting out of bed.

You sir, are the Greatest Hindu Alive on this planet.....

Conversation over, I am not Hindu enough.

 

[wizanda]

So if someone does not accept the Bible as "Lila", is that person still a Hindu?

They're a Hindu in my understanding on accepting the teachings in Hindu texts, and that Brahman is the ultimate Source of reality; if they start denying parts of reality as not from Brahman, then clearly they've got comprehension issues.

I don't understand, were you different from this Brahman?

In Heaven all is Oneness, so we're One in conscious force; yet Brahman is still beyond our perceptions, it is the Core of reality.

How could you perceive "Nirguna", or that which is beyond perception?

Because i seek to be real, and Brahman answers thoughts before we think them in Heaven; plus we're pure energy, thus for those who feel, there is a lot that becomes within perception.

Bahkti to which Devi/Devta?

As an avatar of Skanda/Kalki hardly going to worship myself, would be a bit egotistical...

Thus personally believe the representations are only there for us to have some way of knowing the Source, and only the Source is worthy of worship; images are illusions.

and how do you perform this? for How long?

From my soul we resonate OM at the same frequency as Heaven, and send unconditional love to the Core... This i try to do all day, if i forget i often fall back into depression.

Wait a freeking minute, You DO Jnana AS SOON as WAIKING UP

Again i haven't got much choice, as i wake most mornings, "I'm like oh no, still here, and all this religious stuff i've been taught is real for many, got to do something before the dissolution"...

Thus my mind throughout life has been pondering the higher things, and then trying to be normal; which isn't working very well in this materialistic world.

In my opinion.

 

[Jainarayan]

In Heaven all is Oneness, so we're One in conscious force; yet Brahman is still beyond our perceptions, it is the Core of reality.

There is no Heaven in Hindu belief. "Oneness" is the nature of existence. You're thinking dually. That's fine if you're Dvaitin, dualist.

Because i seek to be real, and Brahman answers thoughts before we think them in Heaven;

New Age psychobabble. You are real, i.e. your atman is real and according to some traditions (Kashmir Shaivism, for one, iirc) , you are real in your entirety. Brahman doesn't answer anything... thoughts, prayers or whatever. No one prays to Brahman, unless it is to Brahman manifest as Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, or one's ishta-devata.

As an avatar of Skanda/Kalki hardly going to worship myself, would be a bit egotistical...

Skanda and Kalki are not the same deity; Kalki is/will be an avatar of Vishnu; Skanda is the son of Shiva and has no avatars (until now? ).

From my soul we resonate OM at the same frequency as Heaven

There is no Heaven in Hindu theology.

Quite honestly, I think everything you've been spouting is based on reading about a few Hindu concepts and applying a liberal dose of New Age religiobabble.

 

[wizanda]

Jainarayan thought you'd adjourned trying to dismantle my posts, and failing by making many assumptions, as it is embarrassing.

You're thinking dually.

I'm both advaita, and dvaita... We're divided from Heaven by multiple dimensions, and the lowest levels of Hell are multiple levels below us...

All dimensions are code, that code all comes from Brahman (CPU); if we understand the code, there are no dimensions, and all is One.

There is no Heaven in Hindu belief.

If your belief is there is no Heaven state that; do not make things up about it isn't a Hindu belief, as it is there in the texts repeatedly (B.G 2:42-44).

"Oneness" is the nature of existence.

This realm is full of Asura who've been kicked out (B.G 16) of Oneness (Heaven); we experience odd bits of Oneness down here from connection together, yet this is nothing compared to being One with the Divine.

Brahman doesn't answer anything... thoughts, prayers or whatever.

This is my own NDE experience, where you've not been there, and are quoting from books that are not as advanced.

Skanda and Kalki are not the same deity; Kalki is/will be an avatar of Vishnu; Skanda is the son of Shiva and has no avatars (until now? ).

You've just said you think Vishnu and Shiva could be one; therefore just explained my understanding that Kalki (Vishnu) comes before Mahapralaya, this is something Shiva does, therefore to me they are one.

You do realize that Krishna claimed to be Skanda (B.G 10:24), and that Skanda therefore is declared coming before Mahapralaya.

But you will get flak for it if you try to explain it to Hindus; it's condescending.

Condescending is to talk down to people; one generally tries to raise people up by helping them comprehend.

There are plenty of none arrogant Hindus who'd like to share ideas about theology (satsang); again speak for yourself, not a huge group of people who might not think like you.

In my opinion.

 

[Vinayaka]

Vanakkam,

Here it's 99,99% Tamil and Sri Lankan... So, Thai poosam and other typical South celebrations are a big thing !
But more seriously, the kovil is becoming way too small for the insane amount of devotees. I don't know how they will solve this, big places inside Paris are either non existant or impossibly expensive.

Aum namah Shivaya

That's sad. Maybe land is cheaper on the outskirts. We're lucky that way. My penance aroused some interest. There are a few customs that people have some hesitancy to bring to new lands. Hopefully some confidence regarding that was built.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jainarayan thought you'd adjourned - trying to dismantle my posts, and failing by making many assumptions is embarrassing.

I'm weak. I have a hard time stopping eating Doritos too. And forget Lay's Potato Chips.

I'm both advaita, and dvaita... We're divided from Heaven by multiple dimensions, and the lowest levels of Hell are multiple levels below us...

Totally nonsensical. Advaita and Dvaita are mutually exclusive. Unless you follow acintyabhedābheda. Even then they don't cancel each other out.

If your belief is there is no Heaven state that; do not make things up about it isn't a Hindu belief, as it is there in the texts repeatedly (B.G 2:42-44).

I'm not making anything up. There is no Heaven as you are pushing. There is Svargaloka, Goloka and Vaikuntha, and otherworlds. You've completely missed the point of those two verses. Confirmation bias, but confirmation is not there.

Svargaloka is a temporary place of peace and rest before the next incarnation. Goloka and Vaikuntha are the otherworldly abodes of Krishna and Vishnu, respectively. They may have musicians and singers, flowers, cows, birds singing and bees buzzing, but they are not Heaven.

This realm is full of Asura who've been kicked out (B.G 16) of Oneness (Heaven); we experience odd bits of Oneness down here from connection together, yet this is nothing compared to being One with the Divine.

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 16? More misinterpretation and misunderstanding

Summary of Bhagavad Gita Chapter 16

quoting from books that are not as advanced.

I'll let Lord Vishnu know he wrote at "Sally, Dick and Jane" level when I talk to him.

You've just said you think Vishnu and Shiva could be one, therefore just explained my understanding that Kalki (Vishnu) comes before Mahapralaya, this is something Shiva does, therefore to me they are one.

śivāya vishnu rūpāya śivaḥ rūpāya vishnave
śivasya hridayam viṣṇur viṣṇoscha hridayam śivaḥ
sarvam khalvidam brahma

Put those verses together and BOOYAH!

You do realize that Krishna claimed to be Skanda (B.G 10:24), and that Skanda therefore is declared coming before Mahapralaya.

Total lack of understanding of Chapter 10 and what Sri Krishna was saying and why. More evidence of reading at face value and cherry-picking.

 

[wizanda]

Thank you all for putting us off wanting to follow a Hindu tradition; will stick with the Hindu texts, as find your bad attitudes none Dharmic.

Totally nonsensical.

People who don't have the intellect to understand a concept properly or who are so busy trying to dismiss they don't think clearly, as they're not trying to understand; often make rash rebuttals of saying a concept is rubbish, rather than actually dismantling where there is error.

Within what i stated that is a way to perceive both monism and dualism, if you can't get your head around it, try more, before dismissing something you don't actually understand.

There is no Heaven as you are pushing.

Assumptions again, you have very little understanding of my beliefs, and then make lots of sweeping statements.

Svargaloka

Sorry what you're saying doesn't make sense, we attain Moksha, and then ascend to Heaven with Brahman.

You've completely missed the point of those two verses.

The way i read those, is the materialistic minded will say there is no Heaven, as they overly attached to the physical.

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 16? More misinterpretation and misunderstanding

First hand knowledge, advanced abilities to see demons in people; personally find here near Hell as people are rude, arrogant, and generally are takers, before being givers.

Since you've not actually seen the other planes of existence, your assumption from a religious tradition with what seems little knowledge, doesn't bother me anymore.

Total lack of understanding of Chapter 10 and what Sri Krishna was saying and why.

My understanding of that text, is all is One, and everything stems from Brahman, therefore it is all part of the same.

In my opinion.

 

[Jainarayan]

Thank you all for putting us off wanting to follow a Hindu tradition; will stick with the Hindu texts, as find your bad attitudes none Dharmic.

Well, I thought I was explaining the dharma, but you found me out... a fraud, a mleccha western half-Hindu, a raksha sent to lead believers astray.

Assumptions again, you have very little understanding of my beliefs, and then make lots of sweeping statements.

But you're trying to pass your beliefs off as Hindu philosophy. They're no more Hindu than the Vulcan Kolinahr is. Your beliefs are your own and valid for you, but they are not Hindu.

we attain Moksha, and then ascend to Heaven with Brahman.

Yeah, uh... no. That comment smacks of Christianity.

The way i read those, is the materialistic minded will say there is no Heaven, as they overly attached to the physical.

There is way more to it than that. In fact that's not it at all.

Read the commentaries:
Chapter 2, Verse 42-43 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda
Chapter 2, Verse 44 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda

2.42 | A simple, modern translation and explanation of the Bhagavad Gita with shloka (verse) meaning

 

[wizanda]

But you're trying to pass your beliefs off as Hindu philosophy.

My theology is my own from before birth, and Hinduism has taught me many things...Yoga, Buddha, Zen, etc.

My question earlier, was how can anyone deny someone being in a religious belief, if they believe in it, and just because you don't know all their special terminology, you're not allowed in their gang.

Well, I thought I was explaining the dharma

Dharma shows in every action; it is like the Tao, it is intrinsically beautiful in form, and formlessness, it becomes a harmony within everything around.

Trying to catch me out, people liking something that comes across as snarky; when representing the Rishi who wrote such amazingly beautiful material, doesn't do it justice.... Sorry.

Honestly rather than treat me like a bum; which we should never do with anyone, even if they act like it... Try being genuine, and same will apply.

That comment smacks of Christianity.

The deception of Christianity as related in its own text, and then hinted at by many other religious texts globally, is so blatant if anyone bothered to read all the texts.

The idea they're totally alien to each other isn't from the texts, yet comes from someone's interpretation.

There is only one CPU, one reality; thus of course ascension should sound similar.

Read the commentaries:

Tho will read commentaries to see what people have written, generally avoid them for theological purposes, as people have all sorts of additional to the text opinions.

Now, the shloka also mentions that such individuals hold heaven as the ultimate goal. The word “heaven” also has a specific meaning here. It does not refer to some place up in the sky. It refers to a future state where you will be happy after you fulfill your desire.

Seriously don't know how some people dare, say "well this divine being didn't really mean that"...

It happens in all religious traditions, and so you have to question the texts for them self, and not what people say they mean; as we're in the Maya, where most people are deluded in someway.

In my opinion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

...Hinduism has taught me many things...

Math has taught me many things. Mathematicians don't view me as a mathematician.

Science has taught me many things. Scientists don't view me as a scientist.


Shall I go on?

 

[Jainarayan]

Tho will read commentaries to see what people have written, generally avoid them for theological purposes, as people have all sorts of additional to the text opinions.

You avoid the commentaries of learned scholars on theological grounds? These are men and women (there are women rishis and acharyas) who have spent their lives studying the scriptures. It's like saying the Supreme Court Justices are not qualified to write legal opinions on the Constitution or that rabbinic scholars are not qualified to write about the Talmud.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Wait, Wizanda isn't serious about Hinduism? I'm shocked!

 

[wizanda]

Math has taught me many things. Mathematicians don't view me as a mathematician.

Science has taught me many things. Scientists don't view me as a scientist.


Shall I go on?

Thank you for the metaphor, and i get people within a specialized field of study, isn't going to accept other people in a field of study, until they've proven academically they're qualified to speak on the subject...

This tho is religion, it is a belief, and anyone can have any belief they want; someone who dares to tell others, 'you're not qualified to speak on our religion' is thinking this is a qualification, not a personal choice.

Tho agreed, i can't speak on Hinduism and don't, i speak on my own personal opinion, as anyone does, including people claiming to be authorities on a religious view, it is all open to interpretation.

Wait, Wizanda isn't serious about Hinduism?

I'm serious about questioning the religious texts, people with their own made up traditions is where it doesn't bother me; people can be following diametrically opposed beliefs, and still be thinking they're going the right way (Like Christianity).

that rabbinic scholars are not qualified to write about the Talmud.

Great example, a Rabbinic scholar can write on the Talmud, as they made it up...

Yet from evidence within the Tanakh we can show the Divine has set them up, as they're religious know it alls who do not really listen (Isaiah 29:9-14).

It's like saying the Supreme Court Justices are not qualified to write legal opinions

They can speak on their own legal activities or cite legal activity; yet it doesn't make them law makers without justification by legal documentation to substantiate it.

Whereas you're putting forward religious people who have rewritten the Laws in the legal religious texts, as these are their opinions about its meaning...

Plus it has now happened so much, that rather than remember a time where some of the Laws were followed, people all follow the Rabbis and think that is the Law.

You avoid the commentaries of learned scholars on theological grounds?

Didn't say that, said i do not use scholarly opinion on religious texts for theological purposes...

In other words, i will read a religious text to find out the Law; not take someone's opinion on it above the text...

Plus to establish the Law first we check all legal documentation; which is other religious texts direct from Divine sources, correlated against each other to establish precedents.

We're near Hell according to many religious ideas, in a world of delusion, where mortals are not overly bright, and you want me to take their opinion, over Divine beings who knew what they're talking about, and then get mad when i say, "the people who know what they're talking about disagree with many of you".

In my opinion.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I'm serious about questioning the religious texts, people with their own made up traditions is where it doesn't bother me; people can be following diametrically opposed beliefs, and still be thinking they're going the right way (Like Christianity).

Right, so you are going to approach Hinduism like you do Christianity. As a buffet line. I figured. That's why you are not a Hindu.

 

[wizanda]

so you are going to approach Hinduism like you do Christianity. As a buffet line.

I've spent over 15 years studying Christianity, and know where the false texts are based on careful analysis... Plus am prophesied to do so in their texts.

As just relating above, precept on precept applies to any legislative understanding; thus Torah is the foundation, prophets are the building, Yeshua is the corner stone, and Christianity does not fit as a roof.

That's why you are not a Hindu.

People have no right to tell anyone what religion they are or not, it is free choice...

I don't fit with Hindu tradition, as like Christianity which is a tradition in total, that came about after; human traditions do not make it legally right, the actual legal documents given by the Divine is the authority.

In my opinion.

 

[oldbadger]

Your beliefs are your own and valid for you, but they are not Hindu.

The above was sent to another.
I know nothing about Hindu, but following the long running 'Great Beings' thread I perceived that one RF member is a Hindu who believes in God, Brahman. And another Hindu who obviously recognises Brahman but who would not accept the existence of a God, the one seeming to be a theist, the other seeming to be an atheist. And I also perceived that there are thousands of differing 'followings' within Hindu, with thousands of Gods.

This jumble of perceptions which I am left with, together with your sentence, above, cause me to ask:-
'What is the definition of a follower of Hindu religion?'

 

[Jainarayan]

This jumble of perceptions which I am left with, together with your sentence, above, cause me to ask:-
'What is the definition of a follower of Hindu religion?'

Hinduism is an umbrella term for an extremely vast and varied collection of beliefs systems, though united by several common elements:

• The existence of an overriding, all-encompassing source of being, i.e. Brahman. There is nothing besides Brahman; the Upanishads (part of the Vedas) say sarvam khalvidam brahma, "all this [we see] verily is Brahman". By definition that also means there is only one Truth, though it may be known variously.
• That the Vedas are apaurusheya, lit. "not of man" in Sanskrit. Revealed to the rishis (by what we really don't know). After intense meditations and spiritual practice. they perceived the truths in the Vedas.
• Karma and the cycle of rebirth (samsara).

There are a number of other common beliefs in Hinduism:
Core Beliefs of Hindus - dummies
Basics of Hinduism

One can call themselves anything they want, but that doesn't make it so. If a person calls themself X and spouts nonsense relative to the accepted beliefs of X, they better be prepared to catch flak... lots of flak.

What is not Hindu are the patently false claims that:

• Hindu soteriology is anything like Christianity or Islam... there is no concept of Heaven and Hell like there is in those religions. "God" does not judge, reward or punish.
• One sees Brahman after moksha (liberation from samsara).
• Shiva and Jesus have anything to do with the temple in Jerusalem.
• The term mahāpralaya (lit. "great dissolution") incorrectly used: it is not a time of judgement or "destruction". It is a time of the change in ages in the cycle of ages of the universe because the universe is old, tired and worn out not because there is evil. That Kalki, the final avatar of Vishnu will come and clean up the mess of this world is uniquely Vaishnava. Pralaya is most likely always occurring through Lord Shiva. He destroys the old and makes way for new creation... think of super- and hypernovae. Old worn out stars explode and die, they spew their elements into space, those elements are the basis for new life.
• Jesus being an avatar of any form of God in Hinduism, e.g. Vishnu or Shiva. Shaivism (followers of Shiva) doesn't even subscribe to the belief in avatars. That's uniquely Vaishnava (followers of Vishnu).
• Analogies of the nature of reality to movies like The Matrix and computers.
• No true avatar or incarnation of God has ever made such a claim. In fact, most of them have denied it or been unaware of it while on Earth.
• Basically every claim and comment made by the o.p. in this thread makes a mockery of the beliefs of over 1 billion Hindus.

 

[Jainarayan]

In other words, i will read a religious text to find out the Law; not take someone's opinion on it above the text...

Which runs the risk of interpreting it completely incorrectly, possibly dangerously. And what makes your opinion any more valid than those scholars' opinions? Aren't you doing the same thing?

Plus to establish the Law first we check all legal documentation; which is other religious texts direct from Divine sources, correlated against each other to establish precedents.

Hinduism is not legalistic.

We're near Hell according to many religious ideas, in a world of delusion, where mortals are not overly bright, and you want me to take their opinion, over Divine beings who knew what they're talking about, and then get mad when i say, "the people who know what they're talking about disagree with many of you".

To claim to be more spiritually advanced than one such as Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekananda, Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramakrishna, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Adi Shankara and the other acharyas, founders of sampradayas and schools of philosophy and teachers is the height of hubris.

So, I'm like...

.

!

 

[Muffled]

Find it really unfair that repeatedly I'm not accepted as being Hindu; when the majority of my beliefs have more Hindu connotations than any other religion.

I'm continually making posts that try to enlightened other religious understandings, to concepts that are currently only properly found in Hinduism, and yet I'm rejected for being Hindu on here.

So please explain where you do not feel I'm a Hindu?

In my Hindu opinion.

I believe that would be like saying that Bah'ais are Christian because they honor some aspects of Christianity while ignoring the essence of it. Then again I am not sure that Hinduism has an essence.

 

[Muffled]

Probably because the main theme of most of your posts is Abrahamic in nature and most of your quotes/verses are from Abrahamic literature.

I believe you are saying that wisdom is as wisdom does. Is that so?