08-31-2005, 08:22 PM
hi prem.
my 2 cents:
Dr. Morales may not be a "Hindu acharya", but he is stating a well-known academic documentation of recent history, and then expressing his opinion that this trend is harmful to the health of Hindu society. The fact that the parties (swamis and saints) that drove and latched on to that trend in history were forced to call their doctrine NEO-Hinduism (or Neo-Vedanta, Neo-Advaita, etc) shows that it was branching away from traditional interpretations. But note that, whenever they can get away with it, they drop the "Neo", like in many of their publications...
These trends were motivated by a need felt by the elite to make Vedic religion conform to the latest philosophies and scientific theories that were coming out of Europe. They were also embarassed by some of the common cultural criticisms that Englishmen were making about Hinduism. So when the gora sahib told his subaltern babu that he had a funny nose, the embarassed and distressed babu felt the need to surgically cut off his own nose. That is, in short, what happened in the Neo-Hindu "reform".
Essentially, it involved a lot of mental speculation (often of a pretty low caliber). It was a weird patchwork invention of "modern art", a religious dadism, so to speak...which tried to legitimize itself by borrowing plumes from established schools of Vedanta.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does Vedas teach Universalism ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends on how we define "universalism". Certainly, the Vedic religion is universal, meant for all mankind, as long as people are willing to meet the standard. But "univesal" does not mean "anything goes", or a buffet-style "take your pick" kind of hodgepodge. Nor can Vedic religion be stretched to moralistically legitimize any and every sectarian cult's fancy. Every great acharya in history has always taken pains to denounce and reprimand all deviant practices in the name of religion, often inviting charges of "fanaticism" upon themselves. But the relativistic framework of Neo-Hinduism has always run after the trophy of "social tolerance", striking moralistic postures, and telling everyone that they are OK (while making some token reprimands about this or that obvious symbol of decadence).
Purity and clarity of doctrine should be there. Social tolerance of different views is a different matter. But indulging in relativistic DOCTRINE in order to appease different social parties is not what a real acharya does.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can the Wisdom of Vedas be absorved with Bhakti or one has to be a scholar of Vedas to attain the spiritual Understanding?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of the biggest misrepresentations of Neo-Hinduism has been "bhakti". It is seriously misunderstood. Para-bhakti is the end of all yoga <i>(raso vai sah)</i>. So Godhead is All-Love, and we, being parts and parcels of God, are also love, and the most natural way to reconnect with Godhead is also through love (i.e., devotional service). Therefore, apart from being the end of all yoga, the discipline of bhakti-yoga (vaidhi-bhakti) is also the most natural and powerful method of yoga.
The acquisition of Knowledge is a preliminary stage in yoga. Perfect surrender is the goal. Refer Bhagavad Gita Chapter 12, verses 8-12. Link: http://www.asitis.com/
As bhakti-yoga matures, wisdom is a natural by-product. But preliminary scholarship of the Vedas is not a pre-requisite, <b>as long as certain basics are properly understood</b>.
"...Whosoever follows a false doctrine of the Self will perish." -- Chandogya Upanishad VIII.8.4
Basic doctrine of the nature and relationship between jiva, ishvara, prakriti, kaala and karma is important. That's why Vyasadeva divided the Vedanta-sutra into sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana jnaana. So you cannot engage in proper bhakti-yoga if you have silly, fuzzy mayavadi notions like "I am God, but I have just forgotten it". No, that is false doctrine. You are <i>qualitatively</i> one with God, but not completely identical. Self-realization means to dovetail and completely merge the individual will with the Supreme Will. I don't want to go deeper into this intricate concept, but I can give you links if you like. But just be careful of being taken in by simplistic, specious philosophies.
The other different types of yogas are all meant for differing grades of False-ego, which produce different "degrees of faith". For those who have a lingering egoic drive for achievement, there are various disciplines involving physical and intellectual sadhana. <i>But the idea is only to finally burn those egoic drives away, and finally surrender in devotional service to the Supreme Godhead.</i> Vaidhi-bhakti includes and involves all these processes, but the central focus is always clear. So yes, as long as we are not able to extinguish our "doubts", we engage in the accumulation of knowledge by reading scripture. But ultimately, surrender is the goal.
But just be careful of reading duplicitous commentaries. You are not identical with "God", but are one in ESSENCE. Even in Shankaracharya's commentaries, he uses two seperate terms with distinct shades of meaning -- advaita (uniqueness), and "ekatva" (collective oneness). Shankara also insisted that only Vishnu can uniquely be identified with Ishvara, and he reprimanded the Pashupatas and other Shaivites for doing so (He was called a "prachanna Vaishnava" by others for this very reason). Many of the practices and orders that Shankara instituted were taken from Vishnuswami, who comes in the Rudra-Vaishnava sampradaya. Other great acharyas like Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc upto Sri Chaitanya (and his 6 Goswami disciples) have left us with expanded and well-qualified semantic explanations on Vedanta. As per my limited understanding, the philosophy of "achintya-bheda-abheda tattva" encapsulates the essence of the Vedic doctrine, and it was spoken by EVERY acharya, and last spoken by Sri Chaitanya.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does Hindus follow Dharm or "religion " like Semetics do?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hinduism is not an "organized religion" in the sense of simply being socially/politically affiliated with a sect. But Hinduism is not a "do your own thing" freelance "private" religion either. Rather, it is somewhere inbetween -- it is based on a personal relationship with Guru, and the guru should come from an authentic parampara. In that framework, one associates and works with one's guru and godbrothers/godsisters.
There is only ONE eternal dharma -- sanatana dharma, and that is to realize our eternal, instrumental oneness with God. Then there are the many exoteric dharmas based on this goal, meant for people of different psycho-physical natures. So, under the guidance of a bonafide Guru, we should practice the dharma and sadhana appropriate to us. Only your Guru can tell you that. But one thing is certain, as the Vedic literature is unanimous on it -- the ONLY effective yoga for this Age (Kali-yuga) -- the yuga-dharma -- is Harinama Sankirtana -- loving glorification of the Supreme Personality of Godhead through thought, word and deed.
If you have the time, read the following article by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati (in two parts):
<b>Be Humbler than a Blade of Grass - Part 1, Part 2</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IS Hindu free to explore Divinity beyond Vedas...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? But the Vedic religion (when understood properly) gives the highest and purest understanding of tattva. After assimilating that, then we can read and understand the ESSENCE in any world religion. So Srila Bhaktivinod Thakura asks us to be "saaragrahi vaishnava" -- one who takes the essence, like a swan. On the other hand, an ignorant, sectarian fool neither understands his own religion properly, nor others. He becomes involved in nit-picking ritualism, ethnic chauvinism, sectarian fanaticism, nationalism, etc. It is the nature of the conditioned soul to mistake the form for the essence. Hare Krishna.
----------------------------------------
Two quotes by the acharyas:
<b>"Krishna as Object of worship is one-Half, and, as the Support of His worshipper, He Himself is the other Half of the Whole. The variety of reciprocal activity of these Two Moieties constitutes the Fullness of the Divinity. Krishna is the complete realization of the Support of His worship."</b>
<b>"The Prime Cause of all effects should not be mutilated or manufactured through the agency of our unblossomed prerogatives. We are limited entities, but the Unlimited Infinity minus our infinitesimality would give us, as a result, an almost infinite gulf. We are earnestly called upon to search for and establish a tie between us and the Unlimited Entity."</b>
my 2 cents:
Dr. Morales may not be a "Hindu acharya", but he is stating a well-known academic documentation of recent history, and then expressing his opinion that this trend is harmful to the health of Hindu society. The fact that the parties (swamis and saints) that drove and latched on to that trend in history were forced to call their doctrine NEO-Hinduism (or Neo-Vedanta, Neo-Advaita, etc) shows that it was branching away from traditional interpretations. But note that, whenever they can get away with it, they drop the "Neo", like in many of their publications...
These trends were motivated by a need felt by the elite to make Vedic religion conform to the latest philosophies and scientific theories that were coming out of Europe. They were also embarassed by some of the common cultural criticisms that Englishmen were making about Hinduism. So when the gora sahib told his subaltern babu that he had a funny nose, the embarassed and distressed babu felt the need to surgically cut off his own nose. That is, in short, what happened in the Neo-Hindu "reform".
Essentially, it involved a lot of mental speculation (often of a pretty low caliber). It was a weird patchwork invention of "modern art", a religious dadism, so to speak...which tried to legitimize itself by borrowing plumes from established schools of Vedanta.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does Vedas teach Universalism ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends on how we define "universalism". Certainly, the Vedic religion is universal, meant for all mankind, as long as people are willing to meet the standard. But "univesal" does not mean "anything goes", or a buffet-style "take your pick" kind of hodgepodge. Nor can Vedic religion be stretched to moralistically legitimize any and every sectarian cult's fancy. Every great acharya in history has always taken pains to denounce and reprimand all deviant practices in the name of religion, often inviting charges of "fanaticism" upon themselves. But the relativistic framework of Neo-Hinduism has always run after the trophy of "social tolerance", striking moralistic postures, and telling everyone that they are OK (while making some token reprimands about this or that obvious symbol of decadence).
Purity and clarity of doctrine should be there. Social tolerance of different views is a different matter. But indulging in relativistic DOCTRINE in order to appease different social parties is not what a real acharya does.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can the Wisdom of Vedas be absorved with Bhakti or one has to be a scholar of Vedas to attain the spiritual Understanding?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of the biggest misrepresentations of Neo-Hinduism has been "bhakti". It is seriously misunderstood. Para-bhakti is the end of all yoga <i>(raso vai sah)</i>. So Godhead is All-Love, and we, being parts and parcels of God, are also love, and the most natural way to reconnect with Godhead is also through love (i.e., devotional service). Therefore, apart from being the end of all yoga, the discipline of bhakti-yoga (vaidhi-bhakti) is also the most natural and powerful method of yoga.
The acquisition of Knowledge is a preliminary stage in yoga. Perfect surrender is the goal. Refer Bhagavad Gita Chapter 12, verses 8-12. Link: http://www.asitis.com/
As bhakti-yoga matures, wisdom is a natural by-product. But preliminary scholarship of the Vedas is not a pre-requisite, <b>as long as certain basics are properly understood</b>.
"...Whosoever follows a false doctrine of the Self will perish." -- Chandogya Upanishad VIII.8.4
Basic doctrine of the nature and relationship between jiva, ishvara, prakriti, kaala and karma is important. That's why Vyasadeva divided the Vedanta-sutra into sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana jnaana. So you cannot engage in proper bhakti-yoga if you have silly, fuzzy mayavadi notions like "I am God, but I have just forgotten it". No, that is false doctrine. You are <i>qualitatively</i> one with God, but not completely identical. Self-realization means to dovetail and completely merge the individual will with the Supreme Will. I don't want to go deeper into this intricate concept, but I can give you links if you like. But just be careful of being taken in by simplistic, specious philosophies.
The other different types of yogas are all meant for differing grades of False-ego, which produce different "degrees of faith". For those who have a lingering egoic drive for achievement, there are various disciplines involving physical and intellectual sadhana. <i>But the idea is only to finally burn those egoic drives away, and finally surrender in devotional service to the Supreme Godhead.</i> Vaidhi-bhakti includes and involves all these processes, but the central focus is always clear. So yes, as long as we are not able to extinguish our "doubts", we engage in the accumulation of knowledge by reading scripture. But ultimately, surrender is the goal.
But just be careful of reading duplicitous commentaries. You are not identical with "God", but are one in ESSENCE. Even in Shankaracharya's commentaries, he uses two seperate terms with distinct shades of meaning -- advaita (uniqueness), and "ekatva" (collective oneness). Shankara also insisted that only Vishnu can uniquely be identified with Ishvara, and he reprimanded the Pashupatas and other Shaivites for doing so (He was called a "prachanna Vaishnava" by others for this very reason). Many of the practices and orders that Shankara instituted were taken from Vishnuswami, who comes in the Rudra-Vaishnava sampradaya. Other great acharyas like Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc upto Sri Chaitanya (and his 6 Goswami disciples) have left us with expanded and well-qualified semantic explanations on Vedanta. As per my limited understanding, the philosophy of "achintya-bheda-abheda tattva" encapsulates the essence of the Vedic doctrine, and it was spoken by EVERY acharya, and last spoken by Sri Chaitanya.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does Hindus follow Dharm or "religion " like Semetics do?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hinduism is not an "organized religion" in the sense of simply being socially/politically affiliated with a sect. But Hinduism is not a "do your own thing" freelance "private" religion either. Rather, it is somewhere inbetween -- it is based on a personal relationship with Guru, and the guru should come from an authentic parampara. In that framework, one associates and works with one's guru and godbrothers/godsisters.
There is only ONE eternal dharma -- sanatana dharma, and that is to realize our eternal, instrumental oneness with God. Then there are the many exoteric dharmas based on this goal, meant for people of different psycho-physical natures. So, under the guidance of a bonafide Guru, we should practice the dharma and sadhana appropriate to us. Only your Guru can tell you that. But one thing is certain, as the Vedic literature is unanimous on it -- the ONLY effective yoga for this Age (Kali-yuga) -- the yuga-dharma -- is Harinama Sankirtana -- loving glorification of the Supreme Personality of Godhead through thought, word and deed.
If you have the time, read the following article by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati (in two parts):
<b>Be Humbler than a Blade of Grass - Part 1, Part 2</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IS Hindu free to explore Divinity beyond Vedas...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? But the Vedic religion (when understood properly) gives the highest and purest understanding of tattva. After assimilating that, then we can read and understand the ESSENCE in any world religion. So Srila Bhaktivinod Thakura asks us to be "saaragrahi vaishnava" -- one who takes the essence, like a swan. On the other hand, an ignorant, sectarian fool neither understands his own religion properly, nor others. He becomes involved in nit-picking ritualism, ethnic chauvinism, sectarian fanaticism, nationalism, etc. It is the nature of the conditioned soul to mistake the form for the essence. Hare Krishna.
----------------------------------------
Two quotes by the acharyas:
<b>"Krishna as Object of worship is one-Half, and, as the Support of His worshipper, He Himself is the other Half of the Whole. The variety of reciprocal activity of these Two Moieties constitutes the Fullness of the Divinity. Krishna is the complete realization of the Support of His worship."</b>
<b>"The Prime Cause of all effects should not be mutilated or manufactured through the agency of our unblossomed prerogatives. We are limited entities, but the Unlimited Infinity minus our infinitesimality would give us, as a result, an almost infinite gulf. We are earnestly called upon to search for and establish a tie between us and the Unlimited Entity."</b>