Why Won't You Let me Be Hindu?

[YmirGF]

Yet so far your ego has gotten in the way of logical discernment and reasoning each time.

Notice how it's never you who are misunderstanding? To my thinking, that is a dangerous sign.

 

[wizanda]

Just a little thing I created to summarize the Lord's attributes:

Very beautifully done... Personally have these verses saved, that add to its theological direction; especially with Hindu Atheists.

BG 9.4: This entire cosmic manifestation is pervaded by me in my unmanifest form. All living beings dwell in me, but I do not dwell in them.

BG 9.29: I am equally disposed to all living beings; I am neither inimical nor partial to anyone. But the devotees who worship me with love reside in me and I reside in them.

So, you understand "Oneness"?

I was in Patala-loka, and it is ugly down there in my NDE, then within my soul, called out "yet i know Oneness!!", that caused me to ascend to Satya-loka/BrahmaLoka (0neness).

has gained and assimilated self-knowledge

Soul knowledge, as discussing on here previously atman being downgraded to self ideologies, is where Buddha, Lao Tzu, Yeshua, all taught selflessness is the Way.

Brahman is selfless, it is ultimately giving in all aspects, takes no form, yet gives reality.

Self is only a realization of an ID, depending on form, so a dog has a different perception of its self, to another animal's perception of self.

Recognizing the Santana of our soul's melody, is a life time of progression; as if we keep to playing within the Divine rhythms, it infinitely keeps evolving.

jivanmukti (Self-realization).

Spirit Liberation

Rejects the validity and authenticity of the Vedas as being "not of man", i.e. "divine".

I accept the Vedas, i don't believe the man-made interpretations that are being followed by many.

When saying 'Hindu Traditions' was meaning some man made tradition passed down; if saying 'Hindu Texts' meaning the people who've written amazingly inspired ideas, and clearly had a different understanding to what we find today.

So, you don't want to be considered Hindu now? You don't want to have conversations with Hindus in the Hinduism DIR now?

I'm respectful to all traditions, religious texts, and teachers; like you've said i don't fit into a preconditioned box that doesn't match the text....

Thus obviously will be polite and might ask questions, yet since most are going the wrong way, it will only cause debate, so best to avoid any bad Karma.

Rude? No, I don't think so. Not the things you wanted to hear? Definitely. Helpful? Yes, hopefully for people who know a little bit more about Hinduism now, what it is and is not.

Like I'm not sure if you're even conscious of it; like you start with how you don't recognize being rude, so i guess not...

You've just at the end of what you're saying, down played me as being a nobody, that has been used as an example to promote your religious Traditions...

Yet pushing others down to raise your self up; doesn't follow the religious ethics.

No, respect and love for Hinduism and for my gods and goddesses and what it all represents.

That is utter rubbish... You can have what ever belief you want, and choose to believe what ever you want about what it represents.

My understanding is different, and we can both have varying different beliefs using the same textual material, and still be Hindus; yet not according to you.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Notice how it's never you who are misunderstanding?

Wouldn't say never, always make loads of mistakes, and will quickly apologize if notice where; yet when people post scholars opinions at me as facts, and normally will show where their ideas don't add up, with the reasoning, people then don't follow it up.

The issue is that often I'm coming against religious tradition Vs religious texts, and am aware sheeple are going to follow their herd over a cliff; yet personally trying to mark a sign post warning them it isn't that way, so understandably expect opposition.

the analogy just isn't that great.

Understand multiple aspects of that; yet which do you find a basis for saying it isn't?

Plus which are the benefits of it, if you truly do know more about computers, and religion interested in the perspective?

In my opinion.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

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.

Yes. Yes it is...

 

[wizanda]

Yes. Yes it is...

Right, so Buddha claimed to be, Is that hubris?

In my opinion.

 

[Jainarayan]

I accept the Vedas, i don't believe the man-made interpretations that are being followed by many.

You prefer to interpret them yourself? Have you stopped to think that in the same way the rishis, who were men and women, were inspired to receive the Vedas, other men and women would be inspired to interpret and teach them? What makes you so sure they are "man-made interpretations" and not divinely inspired and guided? They've spent lifetimes, literally, in meditation, study and spiritual practice to receive their knowledge. Alleged knowledge from one alleged n-d-e trumps thousands of lifetimes of meditation and spiritual practice? I mean... that's real hubris.

You've just at the end of what you're saying, down played me as being a nobody, that has been used as an example to promote your religious Traditions...

Yet pushing others down to raise your self up; doesn't follow the religious ethics.

Absolutely not true. You're suggesting I made ad hominems, which I never did. I know the rules.

My understanding is different, and we can both have varying different beliefs using the same textual material, and still be Hindus; yet not according to you.

That's completely twisted. While Hinduism is not monolithic, your ideas, beliefs and application thereof can in no way be construed as Hindu.

• One can adopt philosophy and beliefs from various traditions and meld them into their own, but that's a syncretism that becomes a completely new tradition or religion.
• You can call it anything you want, except the name of one of those source religions or philosophies.
• You can apply Hindu concepts and philosophies to your beliefs and call it anything you want except Hinduism.
• What you can't do is apply your beliefs and philosophies to Hinduism and call it Hinduism.

That's a slap in the face to 1 billion Hindus who hold with the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of Hinduism as it's been practiced and believed for over 5,000 years; it's a slap in the face to 5,000 years of cultural and religious traditions. No one has the right to do that and expect it to be taken seriously.

 

[Jainarayan]

Right, so Buddha claimed to be, Is that hubris?

In my opinion.

The Buddha didn't claim to be anything except awake.

Dona Sutta: With Dona

 

[YmirGF]

You can apply Hindu concepts and philosophies to your beliefs and call it anything you want except Hinduism.

That's the way I approach this. I openly admit that both Tibetan Buddhism and large swaths of Hindu thought helped to form my foundational ideas about reality. It's a simple fact. But over time, I morphed those ideas into something else. For example, my ideas of personality have direct connections to the "universal form" spoken of by Lord Krsna in the Gita. That is where my ideas began to take shape, but in no way, are my current ideas reflective of Hindu thought. In reality, I've piggybacked that thinking onto Jungian archetypes and then taken it all a few steps further.

So, while I can say that my current thinking was influenced by both Hinduism and Jungian psychology, in no way would I get away with or even think to claim it is representative of either branches of thought.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@YmirGF

Similarly, any of my ideas I think may not represent Buddhism, I call my ideas or pet heresies. Albeit, I usually am referencing back to some kind of Buddhist teaching- even if of a heretical school.

 

[YmirGF]

@YmirGF

Similarly, any of my ideas I think may not represent Buddhism, I call my ideas or pet heresies. Albeit, I usually am referencing back to some kind of Buddhist teaching- even if of a heretical school.

It's just basic honesty, really.

 

[Jainarayan]

I openly admit that both Tibetan Buddhism and large swaths of Hindu thought helped to form my foundational ideas about reality.

Tibetan Buddhism has more in common with Hinduism (and religious Taoism) than it does with other forms of Buddhism.

 

[wizanda]

Have you stopped to think that in the same way the rishis, who were men and women, were inspired to receive the Vedas, other men and women would be inspired to interpret and teach them?

Always reconsidering all aspects of things; yet within analysis of what is within the texts, there are clear differences between those who know, and those who don't later.... This happens in all traditions globally...

So same question back, have you questioned if no one now a days actually has a clue, and they just follow silhouettes of what used to be, like in Plato's cave?

What makes you so sure they are "man-made interpretations" and not divinely inspired and guided?

Because we can generally show flaws in logic, and use reasoning to show what it is most likely meaning.

Alleged knowledge from one alleged n-d-e trumps thousands of lifetimes of meditation and spiritual practice? I mean... that's real hubris.

You already answered the question yourself with hubris...

Which is silly; as already explained that have known since early childhood, that was an avatar with advanced knowledge of global prophecy.

The NDE confirmed in visual detail the afterlife, and thus now with knowledge of many religious texts, it helps justify what we're talking about.

Yet disclaimer: "I have great faith i do not know", so show me with logical reasoning, and will always reassess things.

You're suggesting I made ad hominems

Said nothing about ad hominems; just that it isn't Dharmic

That's a slap in the face to 1 billion Hindus who hold with the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of Hinduism as it's been practiced and believed for over 5,000 years; it's a slap in the face to 5,000 years of cultural and religious traditions. No one has the right to do that and expect it to be taken seriously.

I don't take that seriously, as i've looked at numerous texts at different time periods, and history shows us a devolution of certain ideas, that have now become orthodoxy.

Some of the religious texts are awe inspiring in Hinduism, and those of discernment will find it like a gem they analyze...

Whereas people are rich now, and they pay others to analyze their religion; where they wonder why they keep paying.

The Buddha didn't claim to be anything except awake.

Try reading the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra it really is an amazing series of rational arguments...

Within it Buddha refer to a realm of the Buddhas, and Bodhisattva, who are sent from that realm.

In my opinion.

 

[Jainarayan]

So same question back, have you questioned if no one now a days actually has a clue, and they just follow silhouettes of what used to be, like in Plato's cave?

Two words: Sanātana Dharma, Eternal Way/Duty (ok four words, well maybe five, or maybe even seven with the , and /).

 

[wizanda]

Two words: Sanātana Dharma, Eternal Way/Duty

The dharma is eternally from the Source; yet that doesn't mean souls are following that, and the further we get away from the Source, the more consciousness is adharmic, with us in the middle somewhere.

In my opinion.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"wizanda",

Namaste,

Again not reading the other replies, will only give my opinion and response.

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.

But why should a Hindu Accept the Bible as "lila".

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. 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.

This doe not make sense, if you were one with Brahman, where was this Heaven you speak of? Anyways, just remember that there is Only Brahman, no heaven, no Hell, no Avatr, no ME and no YOU.

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

Ego is thinking and proclaiming ones greatness in order to get appreciation from others, Bhakti is humbling yourself. Bhakti should provide you with a sense that there is Love and Hope for all.

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.

Well, then try to keep up your Sadhana, if you feel it is doing well for you then go right ahead, i have no issues with that.

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.

I think first you must rid your self of all religious/spiritual stuff and change your mind set to not having beliefs, just try to be your self and be confident and satisfied by being you, a human with flaws, like the rest of us, not any better not any worse.
Don't believe any of this Hindu stuff, don't be attached to how other see you, try and get out a bit more, and i mean that in a nice way, i think sometime ago you told me you don't go out much, but anyways, become content in your self, try to see your self in others.

Now i know you probably don't need any advise from a ignorant Hindu like me, but consider it a word of caring from a fellow Human.
Dhanyavad

 

[wizanda]

But why should a Hindu Accept the Bible as "lila".

Because everything is Brahman, and the Bible tells us it is a prophetic trap to catch the demons out...

The Hindu texts give allocation for the Avatars catching out Asura, so it is justified in a Hindu context as well.

Anyways, just remember that there is Only Brahman, no heaven, no Hell, no Avatr, no ME and no YOU.

Having some idea created from snippets of information correlated from many different religious texts, with as such a variety of authors; where we do not know if they've actually seen it, is illogical.

Ego is thinking and proclaiming ones greatness in order to get appreciation from others

Ego is our inner/outer reflection with the outside world. A huge ego in English is where someone projects their self image onto others.

Bhakti is humbling yourself

All service is humbling. Bhakti can only be to worship something greater than ourselves, thus only Brahman is the authority.

consider it a word of caring from a fellow Human.

Namaste Satyamavejayanti-Ji, and thank you for caring...

You remember our conversation about Asura being here, from chapter 16 of the Bhagavad Gita?

The reason i was saying that is the meaning is i've always seen demons in people, i get flash backs of peoples previous lifes, and can remember some of the character flaws across many.

I used to do market research in streets sales, thus I'm quite a confident person; yet realized we're down near Hell due to surveying so many souls.

Thus rather than trying to fit in anymore, and being suicidally depressed for trying to fit into Hell; decided to test the hypothesis everyone down here are all mad in someway (Maya), and we've got to try to be rational, and logically consistent, as people are not.

In my opinion.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"wizanda",

Namaste and Thanks for the reply

 

[Muffled]

But, hey, we can believe @wizanda because he thinks he is an avatara.

I believe I want more from him than an authoritative air. I want him to have a rational basis for what he believes as is the case for everyone else as well.

 

[Muffled]

It does.

I believe you should not hold me in suspense but tell me what it is.

 

[Muffled]

It wasn't my intention. I have never heard that phrase before.

I believe I was doing a play on Forest Gump's: "Stupid is what stupid does."