Who Is A Hindu

[Guest]

Hi folks. Back after a while. Hope to address a few selected points here:

<b>rajesh_g</b>,
Let me give you a concrete example of how various creeds can share the same 'Hindu' cultural platform without having to tamper with Vedanta itself in order to come out with some philosophical 'compromise formula'. You must be aware of what happened recently with the Kanchi math. Although not accepted by the Sringeri math and others, the Kanchi math considers itself in the Advaita line. I have some Tamil friends here whose families are closely linked with the Kanchi math. I have other friends whose theological beliefs and formal affiliations are different (as are mine). Yet, we've put together a good Forum in this city where people get together and read Shankara's works, and help build awareness of what's going on politically. In fact, a large part of the group's logistics is provided by non-Advaitist people (most from Iskcon, in fact), even though the call was given by a Ramakrishna mission devotee (not that the RK mission is true Advaitist -- a point I'll come back to later). So why would they do this? Because the public apathy towards this blatant act of political thuggery against a symbolic Vedic religious authority is of concern to all who revere the Vedic heritage. So there you have it.

2. I see that in your worldview you see the world in terms of monotheistic v/s non-monotheistic and consider monotheism ...

No such thing. My only point was to show why a "monotheistic" creed must necessarily offer an informed criticism of non-monotheistic creeds, because of the philosophical and psycho-spiritual conflicts involved. Although I tried to explain this by the Ayurveda-allopathy analogy, one may really develop an appreciation of this imperative only after some immersion in both, in terms of philosophy and some practice. Conversely, non-"monotheistic" creeds will find monotheism an irreconcilable enemy, and therefore always try to subvert it or play it down. This is also natural.

Secondly, don't latch onto the word "monotheistic" too quickly. That word itself is rather broad. Clearly, "Christianity" (churchianity) and "Islam" (Islamism) have significant differences with Vaishnavism. But at the most basic level, the understanding that the Individual Soul is never "identical" with the Supreme (or rather, that that "identity" is qualified) forms the basis of "monotheism". So here, I am using the term "monotheism" in contradistinction to "atheistic monism", rather than "polytheism".

(a) I guess you were responding to my copy-paste on BR re. the quraish ? I agree that saying islam = arab paganism is false. It is much more then that. But you forgot to mention the first proposal that the quraish made -> dont speak ill of our gods. That doesnt sound too ridiculous to me. (b) IMHO hindu nationalism didnt put "religion" on table, it put hindu religion on table. The others were already on the table.

rajesh, I have no recollection of any discussion we had on BRF. Anyhow, regarding the "speaking ill of our gods" idea: Do not make an absolute virtue out of political correctness or mushiness. The Prophet was known to be rather gentle in speech, but philosophically there could be no pussy-footing. Muslims do believe in demi-gods of all sorts, in case you weren't aware. That is the status that Muhammad assigned to (some of) these "gods" that the Meccans were whining about. That, to them, was "speaking ill". So be it. Muhammad wasn't the first to use coercion. In any case, I'm not getting into a defence of everything that happenedd in Arabia here. I just want to defend the central thrust of my argument -- the justified necessity for a Vaishnava to educate an interested public in what Vaishnavism is, <i>and is not</i>. But if, for you, external "tolerance" as a phlosophical virtue is an <i>absolute point of judgment</i>, then even Secular Humanism may not satisfy you competely.

As for point (b), if you are suggesting that Vivekananda gave Hinduism a place at the table <i>vis a vis Islamism</i>, then that is even worse than the plausible virtue I was suggesting -- of upholding the value of religion in the national conscience. Setting 'Hinduism' up as a counter-Islamic or counter-Christian party is hardly the mission of the great sages. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu often said that "sectarianism and party feeling" were the enemies of spirituality -- and this is from one of the greatest "mayavadi-bashers" of all time. So it may be worthwhile to take a closer look at what He means...

OTOH, you have the RK-mission building "universal temples" complete with cross and crescent emblazoned on it, but open the books and you have lots of nationalistic talk, and of Vivekananda saying that Muhammad was an "imperfect yogi". You tell me who's being disingenuous and insidious here? If you think Muhammad is an imperfect yogi, then why not be open about it? Why hide behind an exterior of great "tolerance"?

4. Let me just clarify one thing - I am not against monotheism, per se. If Dharma needs this tool to defeat the abrahamnic cults once and for all, then so be it. ...

What is this "dharma" of yours? And what is this "abrahamic cults" business?? I'll tell you what it is -- its a bunch of sectarian labels that humans attach to their posteriors.

What is Vaishnavism's USP ? How does it equip "hinduism" with more
firepower ?

By "plundering the storehouse of Love of God and distributing it freely to those willing to accept it". Sri Ramanuja struck the first chord of a symphony that reached its crescendo with Lord Chaitanya. That singular act of the young Ramanuja distributing the mantra to all and sundry at great personal risk is a turning point in the religious history of India and the world. This is the "firepower", para-bhakti, Love of God. The belated efforts of several organizations (still caste-bound internally) to try to counter non-Hindu evangelism by doing some <i>social work</i> or whipping up <i>political sentiment</i> is useless in the long run. I personally know educated and well-off Hindus who are converting outside. When asked about casteism and the "defence of Hinduism" almost a century ago, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura said:

The judgment of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is far superior to the slight improvement of the condition of the lower castes as proposed by the modern social reformers, nay , it far excels even the impartial equality as taught in the Gita. The proposal of the worldly-minded moralists for slightly raising the status  of the lower forms of society has some extraneous motive as its cause; there are various purposes hiding behind it, such as political objects, personal interests, motive for acquiring fame and such other ends. These subordinate principles have given rise to attempts for uplifting the lower castes, which are of an extremely worldly character and clearly betray their hypocrisy. The instruction of the Gita to look on all as equal to the self from the principle that all are souls is several times more elevated than they , and is free from the worldly dirt. But the teachings of Sri Caitanya Deva is not merely prohibitive of worldliness and based on impartiality, but it is a positive one of the character of transcendentalism.

Sri Caitanya Deva wants to engage all jivas in the service of God and thereby to elevate them to the highest status. He converts a crow to Garuda (the prince of Eagles). The religion promulgated by Him in not meant for Bengal alone, nor India even, but for all countries, all villages, His is the universal religion for all creatures. So has He said: “My name will be propagated in all towns, all villages that exist in the world.” 

...The religion as promulgulated by Him is that of the soul; and not that of the society, physical, mental and moral, and is not restricted to the usual form of devotion of the servant to the Majestic Lord. His religion discovers the innate nature of the jiva soul and is manifested in the unabated plenary love for God.

I also quote Shankaracharya from his viveka-chudamani (v. 31): "Among the instruments and conditions necessary for liberation, bhakti alone is supreme. A constant attempt to live up to one's own Real Nature is called a single-pointed devotion." In this and the next verse, Shankara poits out how bhakti is the most natural method, and also the final end, because it is the real nature of the jiva. Of course, I leave it as an exercise to you to read up on how some mayavadis get into a twist trying to interpret this verse among others, that too with reference to the Narada bhakti sutras!

- Why is it that hindu society is a cross-section of all creeds (per Carl) and why isnt any other society like that ? And despite all these 'creeds' what ties a hindu to another hindu ?

Because for several reasons relating to the history and human ecology of the subcontinent, we have an immense diversity in every aspect. What ties one Hindu to another? An ancient and common cultural experience I guess, and that also includes common tormentors and enemies at certain times in recent history.

What does it mean when a 'creed' or an acharya debates and defeats another acharya ? Does that mean the defeated acharya was 'false' ? If he was 'false' then was his experience 'false' ?

No, it doesn’t necessarily mean the previous acharya was “false”. At least not in the cases we’re dealing with here. As I’ve reiterated again and again on this forum, Vaishnavism does not reject the Advaitic conclusions. It only says that the Advaitic understanding of Veddanta is not complete, is not the last word. Vaishnava theory is <i>inclusive</i> of Advaita.

To understand this, we have to understand the nature of <i>jnana</i>, or the Noetic method. There are different types of logic. Jnana is not <i>linear</i> logic. It is a method whereby we circle around the subject of examination (Absolute Truth in this case) in a spiral fashion, examining it from various perspectives, and then zoom into it gradually like a cone into its apex. That’s the best way I can explain an abstract idea in short. Therefore we see that, although Madhva’s “dwaita” seems to have strayed quite far off from Shankara's “Advaita”, actually it is describing only one aspect of the same Truth. In fact, the Vedic definition of a “muni” is one artfully who describes the same truth in different terms! That is also the reason that Lord Chaitanya’s theology is the most complete, because it elegantly dovetails conclusions from all these into a complete picture, and covers more philosophical ground in doing so...

What does 'absolute truth' mean ?

Whew! You got me there bro. I’ll get back to you in about 20 years. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> But I hope you get an idea of how various answers to that question may be “different”, and yet not “contradictory”.

<b>gangajal</b> bhai!
Will just respond to some points:

Vivekananda called these sampradayas Vaishnavas because these sampradayas call themselves Vaishnavas. This is the reason why western scholars have accepted Vivekananda's position...

Your sampradaya seems to have a fascistic bent of mind trying to dictate to other sampradayas what they should call themselves....

Does this make sense? Isn't a self-realized representative of Vedanta supposed to put things in their place and point out deviations for the public good? So now you should not get upset if your beloved Western "scholars" write about sati and casteism as "Hindu" practices, because the people who do it call themselves Hindu.

Now you tell me which is more "fascistic": If I just want to make clear what I stand for and what I do not stand for (like Vaishnavas do), am I fascist? Or would I be fascist if I presumed to speak for you and everyone else, completely misrepresenting your point of view, and hogging the mic on the basis of my "nationalist" credentials (as the RK mission and others do)?

I laughed loudly even more after reading your claim that you were stating Shunyavad theory when you wrote that all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream. Shunyavad, expounded by Nagarjuna and commented on by Chandrakirti, is a Buddhist theory and rejects Brahman and Atman and all eternalism. Why did you suddenly jump from Advaita to Shunyavad and then you get shunyavad wrong?

I used to think that obfuscation was a deliberate mayavadi tactic, but I see that its usually simply a case of scatterbrain. Please re-read my posts. The point I was driving home is similar to what you are pointing out – that typical mayavad is actually a concoction of true Advaita and shunyavad. In fact, Shankara himself was often criticized as <i>prachanna baudha</i> (hidden Buddhist). Why? Because, understandably, he undertook the monumental task of establishing the superiority of Vedanta in front of an audience that had no respect for Vedic literature in the first place. Therefore, responding to desha, kaala and paatra, Sripada Shankara expertly presented a higher truth (Brahman) in ways very similar to shunyavaadi phraseology. It is that inconvenient and double-edged phraseology that mayavadis latch on to when debating Vaishnava purvacharyas, thereby sliding down the slope of shunyavad atheism. What they end up with is the same shunyavad atheism, cloaked in Vedantic phraseology – <i>effectively the opposite of Shankara’s mission</i>.

RK mission does not follow Shunyavad but <b>bhakti misrita Advaita</b>...
...and also respects  <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->  Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita

”misrita” eh? <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> I’m glad you finally decided to fess up. At first, when the RK mission decided to call themselves “Advaitin”, the more established authorities of Advaita in India told them to take a hike. So then the RK mission called themselves “neo-Advaita”, whatever that means. Now gangajal is saying “bhakti misrita advaita”. Methinks you misunderstand Advaita <i>and</i> the idea of Bhakti. You should just be honest and call it “Sri Ramakrishna’s religion”, as Vivekananda once admitted. Like I said before, not only does RK mission have no right to speak on behalf of “Hinduism”, but it cannot speak on behalf of "Advaita" either.

On top of that, you go ahead and build “universal temples”, pretending to “respect” Islam and Christianity, in addition to your “respect” for Vishishtadvaita. We have seen on this very forum your disdain and hatred for Islam, Christianity, and your disagreement with Vaishnavism. So why the façade? As I said, <b>there is NO PROBLEM if you disagree with another philosophy, but don’t pretend to “respect” and then misrepresent that philosophy.</b> <i>Why can’t the RK mission conduct its mission purely on the strength of Sri Ramakrishna’s religion?</i> Why does it have to piggy-back on other established theologies (Advaita, Vaishnavism, Christianity, Islam, etc)? Why lay eggs in other nests?

Hi <b>sunder</b>.

So far as Omkara Pranava is concerned, He is considered the sound incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; (Sound, and "Incarnation"?? did I actually read Incarnation??)

Aha! Didn’t know you were so finicky about your English. Perhaps “manifests in sound” would be a better substitute. You’re probably familiar with the Vedic theory of vaak and what goes into a mantra, so no need for explanation here. Why quibble over English? You could have been a little more charitable with stuff you pull off a random website, especially when the article is not even written by a scholar sannyasi. It appears you’re scraping the barrel here looking for defects!

Thus the differences that come about is from the Agama stream of thought. The Brahma Sutra Bhashya (I have read only Shankara Bhashya) refutes the Agama schools - Pashupatha, Pancharatra etc, and reconciles them. Someone can educate me how Sri Ramanujacharya, and Sri Madvacharya interpret this.

sunder, the Vaishnava acharyas have also drawn the distinction b/w Agama and Shruti, etc., and give primacy to Veda proper, though they certainly did give greater value to Agama than do others. So firstly, note that every Vaishnava sampradaya began with an exegesis of the Vedanta sutra. As for the Puranas, most of them are acknowledged to have been corrupted, except for the Shrimad Bhagavatam, known as the amala purana (immaculate purana). Yamunacharya wrote a book called the “agama pramanya” in defence of the Agamas in general, even while admitting that they were corrupted.

<b>Shambhu</b>,

A person (X) who does not call for the conversion of other people based on his (X's) belief system [I put in the X to make the meaning clearer]. A hindu may ask for people to be reconverted to hinduism. "Reconverted" meaning that there exists strong evidence to say that the present religion the "other people" (above) was hinduism.

I added the reconversion clause to include the VHP etc.

So this is the kind of fatal defensive mentality that is the bane of modern Hinduism. Why does Hinduism not call for the “conversion” of others? Since when? The HIGHEST merit in the Veda goes to those who preach and spread the Vedic philosophy. In the Gita, Krishna says that one who spreads and preaches this knowledge is dearest to Him. One can bury the above “definition” of yours in a ton of quotes. The above mentality is a relic of the age when Hindus went into a shell, partly due to internal decay, and partly due to external aggression. <b>It is the ULTIMATE DHIMMI mentality.</b>

Ashok kumar, sunder and others, I hope to make a post on the new "Iskcon" thread later.