Author Topic: Rough Notebook-Open Forum  (Read 268883 times)

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43550
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #150 on: July 22, 2012, 07:12:24 PM »
Dear ramana 1359,

See these Guru Vachaka Kovai verses also, which speak of harmony of religions:

989. Since Mauna, the culmination of jnana, is their common nature, all religions are acceptable as a means to
advaitic truth, which shines unique and pure. They are therefore not opposed to the Vedanta that is the source
of non dual Brahma Jnana.

990. Even if those ignorant people in whom consciousness has not attained fullness fabricate a new religion, out of envy
and anger (towards existing beliefs ), you should know that it (the new religion) is also acceptable to Sivam (Consciousness),
which shines purely in the form of division-free consciousness.

Murugnar: (explanation to the above verse): As Consciousness shines as Consciousness alone, all the religions that arise,
as an activity of Consciousness belong to Consciousness. If out of narrow mindedness, a new religion comes into being -
\as if the diverse religions that currently exist are not sufficient, that religion too is not opposed to Consciousness.

991: Instead of turning outwards,arguing against other religions on account of attachment to your own, turn inwards and
practice, with genuine love, whichever religion you have faith in.

992. Instead of engaging in diverse disputes about dualism, qualified non dualism and non dualism, practice devotion to God
by mediating on him so that your penance ripens, encounter the divine wealth of grace, and realize the truth. This is the
best course.

993. So long as the mind survives, religion will also exist. No such religion can survive in the abundantly peaceful silence, that
results from the mind merging in the Heart, as a result of turning within and scrutinizing its own nature.

SEE the Padamalai verses:

539. Feeling  anger and hatred in the mind on account of a blind fanaticism towards one's own religion is a cruel and
ignoble deed.

1665: Instead of condemning another's path, destroying your clarity, learn one method. Observe it and cherish it in your heart.

On many occasions, when the subject of religion arises, Sri Bhagavan remarked, "Men cannot understand their own errors.
In many places, the ego comes up in the form of saying, 'My religion should be embraced by all."

Madhava Tirtha writes:

I saw a good example of the Maharshi's disinclination to impose Hindu ideas on people who would not appreciate them
when a group of devout Muslims came to see Him.

One of them asked: What is the best aim of human life? 

Sri Maharshi replied: It is Islam, which means 'to remain at the feet of God'. And as a consequence of that, one gets
salaam, which means peace.

Arunachala Siva.                 

Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #151 on: July 22, 2012, 07:18:54 PM »
Thanks, Sri Subramanian. I agree with all that.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #152 on: July 22, 2012, 07:26:48 PM »
But the only thing that I wanted to point out, just to point out :) , without intention of judge or even to compare or discriminate is that modern Hinduism is predominantly Polytheistic and my supposition is that the so called Brahminism during Buddha's time was not so much different. Dualism (and Polytheism as result) is just the way most people think which is nothing wrong. I am just describing, not taking a stand.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43550
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #153 on: July 22, 2012, 08:34:58 PM »
Dear ramana 1359,

What does poly theism indicate? Different gods for worship. Now another ancient religion had also had different types of
gods for worship, i.e Greek  's ancient religion. They had Promethus, Apollo, Venus, etc., etc..

I do not know about Greek religion but I can say that in Hinduism. While the ancient Rig Veda etc., starts with praying only
to Agni, in later Vedas spoke of different gods. But if you come to major upanishads (minor upanishads speaks about personal
gods) they speak only about Brahman. My observation is these personal gods came about because -

1. Men and women could not be satisfied with non-form,non-name Brahman for the purpose of worship. All are not doing
atma vichara. Most of them are doing only pujas, japas etc., This needs a god to be placed before.

2. This is known to Sri Sankara. That is why, that great Saint who spoke about Advaita all through His life, a pinnacle of a
philosophy (even to call it a philosophy is wrong. It is an experiential Truth), who wrote commentaries on Brahma Sutram and
ten major upanishads, had to come down to the commoner's level and composed Stotras on Siva, Devi, Narasimha, Muruga,
Ganesa, Panduranga, Narayana, Guruvayurappan  and other gods.  This is only to facilitate the commoner to first worship
the form-ful God and then proceed to formless and nameless Principle. This is where the philosophy gets transformed to religion
and religion paved way for Atma Vicahara.   

3. Next to Him came Appaya Dikshitar. He was an advaitin. But he had to write some verses on other gods too for the same
reason.

4.  In case of Sri Bhagavan, He stuck to the Self, Atma. In the Arunachala Stuti Panchakam too, He called Arunachala as
Atma only. Still there is, I should say, it is a form of worship.  Apart from that He did not even write anything about Devi even.

5, Sri Bhagavan while translating in verse or prose works of Sri Sankara, He chose only those which speak about Atma,
Sri Dakshinamurti, not as a form but as a guru which pushes you inside to find the Atma. Then Viveka Choodamani and
Atma Bodham, Hastamalakam,

6. Even minor granthas of Sri Bhagavan like Appala Pattu, Atma Vidya Kirtanam, Ekanma Panchakam speak only about
Atma within.           

The polytheism in Hinduism is only for commoners who cannot grasp the concept of formless, nameless Brahman.
There is no polytheism at all in the higher levels. 

When Mahaswami of Kanchi was once asked: You are an advaitin. Why do you adorn vibhuti? Is not Vibhuti a sign of
Saivism?  Mahaswami replied: No. The vibhuti really denotes the way the jiva becomes a handful ashes and so one should
attain Atma Jnanam. So an advaitin wearing vibhuti is not to denote that he belongs to Saiva class. In fact, we always say
Naryana, Narayana..... Because, Narayana is also Brahman, Siva is also Brahman. Kamakshi is also Brahma swarupam.

As Muruganar said for Consciousness, all forms of worship are acceptable.

Arunachala Siva.   

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #154 on: July 22, 2012, 09:31:53 PM »
Ramana,
Since you seem to know what Hinduism is and what it is not,I will leave you with your understanding.

Subramanian,
The Vedic Gods like Mitra,Varuna ,Agni are not figments of imagination of the people of those times,later on to be replaced with Puranic Gods.The Names have changed,the principle or Tatva is the same.
Here is an example from Durga Suktam from Mahanarayana upanishad:

Jatavedase sunavama soma marathee yatho nidhahadhi veda,
Sa na parshadathi durgani viswa naaveva sindhum durithathyagni. 1

Our oblations of Soma to the fire god,
May he, the all knowing one destroy all those who do not like us,
May that divine fire lead us out of all perils,
Like a captain takes his boat across the sea,
And also save us from all wrongs.

Thaam agni varnaam thapasa jwalanthim vairochanim karma phaleshu jushtam,
Durgam devim saranamaham prapadhye, sutharasi tharase nama.
2

I take refuge in the divine mother Durga*,
Who shines like a fire due to her penances,
Who resides in actions and their fruits and makes them effective,
And I salute her who helps us cross our difficulties.

This is how The Upanishad refers to Agni as jAtAvedas(Knower of all Births) and also as Durga devi.

All the Gods referred to in the Vedas have a deep psychological and spiritual significance -referring to the functioning of the powers of One God in varied aspects.
One of the Best and most insightful writings on the Vedas is by Sri Aurobindo;His wonderful 'The Secret of the Veda' reveals the powerful symbolism and significance of the Vedas.
The Functioning of one God in varied aspects is wrongly perceived as Polytheism by westerners.

It is quite like Ravi is the Father of his son,Husband of his wife,Manager to some employee ,Subordinate to his boss in Office,Citizen of a country-all these are different Roles and Functions performed by one 'Ravi'.This does not mean that there are 5 or 6 Ravis,all different from each other.
How much more and diversified the manifestation and functioning of Iswara!Each of these manifestation is associated with a Name and is invoked with that Name and Form.
This is not for the 'Common Man' but the wise ones have invoked the ONE iswara in all these forms.It is Iswara who manifests in all these aspects.This is not polytheism.

Namaskar.




Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #155 on: July 22, 2012, 10:16:31 PM »
Sri Ravi, I just shared my opinion, nothing more. I already regret for that. You don't need to be harsh.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #156 on: July 22, 2012, 10:26:05 PM »
Ramana,
No harshness intended :)
It is just that a discussion can continue only if the conclusion is not there.It cannot continue after the conclusion is reached and maintained.Is it not?
Namaskar.

Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #157 on: July 22, 2012, 10:30:06 PM »
Quote
It is quite like Ravi is the Father of his son,Husband of his wife,Manager to some employee ,Subordinate to his boss in Office,Citizen of a country-all these are different Roles and Functions performed by one 'Ravi'.This does not mean that there are 5 or 6 Ravis,all different from each other.

Nobody refuses that. This is what I believe, as everyone in this forum. I only say that the most Indians don't think like that. They see all Deities as different entities. That's why I say Hinduism is mostly polytheistic. What you are talking about is called Monotheistic Polytheism - One God in different Names and Forms. Unfortunately I don't see such understanding among Indians. Their mind is completely polytheistic, seeing different aspects of God as different Persons communicating and so one each other. That is everything that I wanted to say and you accused me that my understanding of Hinduism is wrong. I don't choose what the people to believe and think. I always talked about Hinduism as function of the devotees' beliefs and practices (because religion is exactly that - belief system constructed from devotees based on Sacred Text, some teachers and so on) but you as what the Sages and Authors of the Vedas have taught. That from where our misunderstanding come about.

Best wishes, ramana 1359.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #158 on: July 22, 2012, 10:51:03 PM »
Ramana,
" I only say that the most Indians don't think like that"
It is quite clear that only few practise.Many  only believe ,but that also is quite in order.Everyone has to progress from where he or she is.This is sanctioned(and not curbed or condemned)because what starts as belief in some form and name is Good enough,to start with.If one is sincerely attracted to that name and form,and even if one were to consider that as different than all the Rest;It still will lead one to the Truth.This is what sri Ramakrishna has said and more importantly advocated.
Differences and distinctions exist as long as one has not come face to face with Truth.Even after attaining Truth,One may still continue with a seeming preference for a 'Name' and 'Form' .The External nature or prarabdha will continue as before.

Unity in Diversity is the beauty of sanatana Dharma as admitted by the sages.

If we go to villages,even unlearned,rustic people will say in Tamil:
ariyum sivanum onnu
ariyAdavan vayile mannu

Meaning :
Hari and siva are one!They are quite humble and acknowledge all forms of god.

It is only the 'learned' and 'literate' who are neither here nor there!

Namaskar.

Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #159 on: July 22, 2012, 10:59:13 PM »
Quote
Unity in Diversity is the beauty of sanatana Dharma as admitted by the sages.

Yes, but only if you accept that God is One and the other religions preach the Same Lord. If it is not available we cannot talk about Sanatana Dharma. To accept "Unity in diversity" you must first accept that there is Unity. I don't see unity (even in theory and possibility) among Christians, Muslims, Vaishnavam, Shaivam and so on. They accept only they are right and other religions are evil or the other Gods are Satan or servants and so on. I don't consider this as applicable to Vedic, Upanishadic, Puranic or Sanatana Dharmic Truth.

Best wishes, ramana 1359
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #160 on: July 22, 2012, 11:17:21 PM »
Sri Ravi, I know that Sacred Scriptures - Vedas, Upanishad, Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavat Purana, Brahma sutras and so on absolutely cover and teach what Advaitins, Sri Ramana, Sri Ramakrishna and all others like them support and preach. But can you compare their followers and people with their way of thinking to all dualistic bhaktas who teach One Supreme Lord governing all pantheon? Dualistic bhaktas are much, much more. That's why I said that Hinduism is more polytheistic. These people do not believe that Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, Devi, Ganapati and others are just One Lord. Do you see? They believe they are different Deities FOREVER, FOR ETERNITY. This is what makes Modern Hinduism and Brahminism polytheistic. If they believed that God is One and these Gods are His manifestations but they just feel Them like They are separate entities, OK. But that's not the case. Before I start visiting forums like this one I could not find a single Indian person who to share my belief. I was deeply moved by Lord Shiva but all taught me "No. He is just devotee of Lord Krishna. He is the Supreme Lord". It is the same with Shaivam : "Don't read Bhagavad Gita" and so on. So please, understand me right. I have some experience. I have watched interviews, movies and so on, talked with people. All was the same. And most of the said me to follow Krishna, not even Vishnu, and if I don't do that I am just loosing my time. So my experience is the Modern Hindus are mostly polytheistic. I saw in Hinduists "hidden Christian fanatics". I have heard that India is most tolerant and open county which allow people to find themselves and suddenly I got into another fanatics. I tried to be as much as I can complete to try to show you why my opinion is like that. I hope you understood me now.

Best wishes, ramana 1359
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #161 on: July 22, 2012, 11:19:28 PM »
Ramana,
"To accept "Unity in diversity" you must first accept that there is Unity. I don't see unity (even in theory and possibility) among Christians, Muslims, Vaishnavam, Shaivam and so on. They accept only they are right and other religions are evil or the other Gods are Satan or servants and so on."

Unity is not a matter of acceptance as much as it is a matter of understanding.
Further,Unity is not uniformity!Quite often we tend to use this interchangeably.
Unlike other religions like Christianity or Islam,sanatana Dharma is not an Organized religion.
Religion for the Hindu is his private affair.A Husband may have an 'Ishta' and a wife may have a totally different 'Ishta'(Particular name and form of personal god).Each one ,however acknowledges the efficacy as well the 'individual' need of the other and there is perfect Harmony and understanding.
The Temples here are not a place for congregational worship like the mass in a church or Namaz in a mosque.No one here issues summons if one does not turn up in congregation.
This is how a Hindu is brought up and this very upbringing gives him a tremendous sense of Freedom of thought and catholocity.He may still have his preferences,yet he very well acknowledges similiar preferences in others.This is how the 'Unity in Diversity' is understood and Practised.There is thus no sharp schism as 'we' and 'They' or 'Others'.

The Dogmatic statements of a few teachers and their adherents cannot be taken as representing the Vast masses of Indians.

If you read Swami Vivekananda's talk-'My Master',he speaks about this aspect of Hinduism or sanatana Dharma.


Namaskar.




Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #162 on: July 22, 2012, 11:26:35 PM »
Ramana,
"To accept "Unity in diversity" you must first accept that there is Unity. I don't see unity (even in theory and possibility) among Christians, Muslims, Vaishnavam, Shaivam and so on. They accept only they are right and other religions are evil or the other Gods are Satan or servants and so on."

Unity is not a matter of acceptance as much as it is a matter of understanding.
Further,Unity is not uniformity!Quite often we tend to use this interchangeably.
Unlike other religions like Christianity or Islam,sanatana Dharma is not an Organized religion.
Religion for the Hindu is his private affair.A Husband may have an 'Ishta' and a wife may have a totally different 'Ishta'(Particular name and form of personal god).Each one ,however acknowledges the efficacy as well the 'individual' need of the other and there is perfect Harmony and understanding.
The Temples here are not a place for congregational worship like the mass in a church or Namaz in a mosque.No one here issues summons if one does not turn up in congregation.
This is how a Hindu is brought up and this very upbringing gives him a tremendous sense of Freedom of thought and catholocity.He may still have his preferences,yet he very well acknowledges similiar preferences in others.This is how the 'Unity in Diversity' is understood and Practised.There is thus no sharp schism as 'we' and 'They' or 'Others'.

The Dogmatic statements of a few teachers and their adherents cannot be taken as representing the Vast masses of Indians.

If you read Swami Vivekananda's talk-'My Master',he speaks about this aspect of Hinduism or sanatana Dharma.


Namaskar.

To understand something you first must want to understand it, to accept that there is something more than what you think. This is impossible for more religious people.

If you equal Hinduism = Sanatana Dharmas as Sri Vivekananda did, then yes, I say Hinduism is Monotheistic and even more -  it is completely Monistic religion and philosophy.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #163 on: July 23, 2012, 06:33:33 AM »
Ramana/Friends,
Here is an excerpt from Swami Vivekananda's talk-'My Master':
" To learn this central secret that the truth may be one and yet many at the same time, that we may have different visions of the same truth from different standpoints, is exactly what must be done. Then, instead of antagonism to anyone, we shall have infinite sympathy with all. Knowing that as long as there are different natures born in this world, the same religious truth will require different adaptations, we shall understand that we are bound to have forbearance with each other. Just as nature is unity in variety--an infinite variation in the phenomenal--as in and through all these variations of the phenomenal runs the Infinite, the Unchangeable, the Absolute Unity, so it is with every man; the microcosm is but a miniature repetition of the macrocosm; in spite of all these variations, in and through them all runs this eternal harmony, and we have to recognize this. This idea, above all other ideas, I find to be the crying necessity of the day. Coming from a country which is a hotbed of religious sects--and to which, through its good fortune or ill fortune, everyone who has a religious idea wants to send an advance-guard--I have been acquainted from my childhood with the various sects of the world. Even the Mormons come to preach in India. Welcome them all! That is the soil on which to preach religion. There it takes root more than in any other country. If you come and teach politics to the Hindus, they do not understand; but if you come to preach religion, however curious it may be, you will have hundreds and thousands of followers in no time, and you have every chance of becoming a living God in your lifetime. I am glad it is so, it is the one thing we want in India.
    The sects among the Hindus are various, a great many in number, and some of them apparently hopelessly contradictory. Yet they all tell you they are but different manifestations of religion. "As different rivers, taking their start from different mountains, running crooked or straight, all come and mingle their waters in the ocean, so the different sects, with their different points of view, at last all come unto Thee." This is not a theory, it has to be recognized, but not in that patronizing way which we see with some people: "Oh yes, there are some very good things in it. These are what we call the ethnical religions. These ethnical religions have some good in them." Some even have the most wonderfully liberal idea that other religions are all little bits of a prehistoric evolution, but "ours is the fulfillment of things". One man says, because his is the oldest religion, it is the best; another makes the same claim, because his is the latest.
We have to recognize that each one of them has the same saving power as the other. What you have heard about their difference, whether in the temple or in the church, is a mass of superstition. The same God answers all; and it is not you, or I, or any body of men that is responsible for the safety and salvation of the least little bit of the soul; the Almighty God is responsible for all. I do not understand how people declare themselves to be believers in God, and at the same time think that God has handed over to a little body of men all truth, and that they are the guardians of the rest of humanity. How can you call that religion? Religion is realization; but mere talk--mere trying to believe, mere groping in darkness, mere parroting the words of ancestors and thinking it is religion, mere making a political something out of the truths of religion--is not religion at all. In every sect--even among the Mohammedans whom we always regard as the most exclusive--even among them we find that wherever there was a man trying to realize religion, from his lips have come the fiery words: "Thou art he Lord of all, Thou art in the heart of all, Thou art the guide of all, Thou art the Teacher of all, and Thou carest infinitely more for the land of Thy children than we can ever do." Do not try to disturb the faith of any man. If you can, give him something better; if you can, get hold of a man where he stands and give him a push upwards; do so, but do not destroy what he has. The only true teacher is he who can convert himself, as it were, into a thousand persons at a moment's notice. The only true teacher is he who can immediately come down to the level of the student, and transfer his soul to the student's soul and see through the student's eyes and hear through his ears and understand through his mind. Such a teacher can really teach and none else. All these negative, breaking-down, destructive teachers that are in the world can never do any good."

Namaskar.

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
    • View Profile
Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« Reply #164 on: July 23, 2012, 09:09:47 AM »
Ramana,
"To understand something you first must want to understand it, to accept that there is something more than what you think. This is impossible for more religious people."
In fact the vast majority of the orthodox seekers precisely hold onto what you are alluding.They hold onto what their Guru or Teachers say,much more than what they as individuals 'think'.This is also a form of Sraddha or Diligence and even if they shut themselves to the other school of thought,if they hold fast ,sincerely and pursue what a Vaishnava Teacher or a Sakta Teacher has said,that is enough.They will still come by Truth.
On the other hand a mere catholocity or breadth of thought or perspective will leave one a tolerant or a genial person ;nothing more than that!
If one has the Intensity,that  by itself would flower in its own time.
This is how Sri Ramakrishna practised Islam ,where he did Namaz at regular times as stipulated by Islam.Importantly,he did not visit the Kali temple or anything to do with Hinduism during that short period,and practised exactly like a zealous Muslim would.
If the Genuine Zeal is there ,that is all that matters.No need to accept other school of thoughts or appreciate them.
Namaskar.