Who Is A Hindu

[Sunder]

Carl, I respect your adherence and staunch faith to Vaishnava teachings. But 'blind' faith is just that.. It is blind. You speak the right jargons, your intent too seems to be good - i.e. trying to reach the Truth. But again, owing to force of habit, and limiting yourself to just one sect, you decry every other thought - thus like christians, you are unwilling to accept any other thought than that you already have. I do not ask acceptance based on faith. I ask logic and reasoning to prove your conviction. Iskcon indeed is doing some good things, but is it really doing good in the long run? Your karma vasana has led you to the mindset you are in now. Perhaps with more practise, you will some day see beyond the screen of maya. (Daivi hyeshaa guna-mayee mama maaya duratyayaa | maameva ye prapadyante maayaam etaam taranti te || (Geetha 7.14)') The maya is quite strong now, and with His grace you will see thru it.

The thread was about academic and popular misrepresentations about 'Hinduism', and that's all I wanted to highlight.

Yes, I agree. Academic side we are aware of. ISKCON sadly is one of the popular misrepresentation of Sanathana Dharma. Superficially, it seems good. But the teachings are quite asynchronous to traditional Vedic Teachings and the spirit of Dharma.

But suffice to say that in every Upanishad or other scripture you mention, there is plenty of evidence to point to something MORE than Brahman.

Name ONE teaching that says Brahman is inferior to name and form. Name ONE that says Brahman is not the final. You say - EVERY upanishad. Name one among the major 10 that says so.

Note that the Vaishnavas do NOT deny the existence of Brahman, and in fact Brahman-realization is a preliminary stage to full svarupa-siddhi.

Svaroopa Siddhi is superior to Nirvikalpa siddhi? Interesting. It is akin to saying that Ph.D training is only the preliminary stage to attaining high-school graduation. You are putting the cart before the horse. Upanishads declare that anything that has name of form is limited (Bhauma Vidya of "Naradha Sanathkumara Samvadham" - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 7th chapter.) Brahman neither has form, nor is formless. It is beyond all such duality. Or not even that.

This realization is supported by great mystics outisde of India also, such as Jalaluddin Rumi, etc.

As if the ancient ancestors were not enough, I now have to resort to Jalaluddin Rumi to endorse svaroopa. Rumi is not known as a final authority on Siddhi and Siddha. Ramana Maharshi on the other hand is quite known for his Direct Realization & people who had known him had experienced the 'I-I'.

And to give you just one example of mischievous mayavad misquotations, the verse 7:24 in the Gita, which mayavadis like to translate as "fools think I have assumed a personal form whereas I am actually unmanifested..." can also be translated exactly the opposite to read "fools think that I am only unmanifest...".

Param Bhaavam, Aja:, Anantha, Bootha Maheshwara. These are terms The Lord uses in the second line of the same shloka. I am sure you can translate this exactly into any tangent you wish to. That does not make it the right translation.

Besides, there are innumerable quotes in the Gita, taken coherently, that support the Vaishnav position.

Yes, but not vaishnava position alone. I ALSO supports vaishnava position. Vaishnavas are dependent on the Gita, the Gita is not dependent on the Vaishnavas.

The Vaishnav position is INCLUSIVE of Brahman, whereas the mayavad position is in denial of anything further.

Your mention of "inclusive" assumes that there are multiple simultaneous entities coexisting of their own volition. "Brahmaiva Satyam" does not support this stance, as it is not "Brahma api cha Satyam". The Vedic statements "by knowing which everything else is known" also signifies a common substratum. Iskcon is mighty confused about this, and is not quite the effective (or even right) representative of Sanathana Dharma. Iskcon is at best another abberration of the myriad other minor interpretations that exist.

Mayavad quotes are always selective, and convoluted in interpretation.

Convoluted only to a confused mind. To a mind pure and clear, there are no convolutions or contradictions. Ofcourse, a child of three will wonder how E can be MC2. E can only mean "Elephant" or "Engine". It takes some more learning on your part to understand Advaita.

Occam's razor should be enough to cut down most mayavadi arguments, but the tarka-shastra injunctions against vitanda and jalpa rather than vaad completely seal the fate of the mayavadis.

The Jargon is right. You are quite aware of the components of Nyaya. I am surprised then why you are unable to see thru the real nature of existence?

The literature is there, go read it without prejudice. The Vaishnav literature is comprehensive, and debates openly. The mayavad literature is selective and polemical.

You assume I have not read. I have read, and without prejudice Upanishads, Smrithis, Gita, Brahmasutra and ofcourse and Advaita texts like Panchadasi. I have also tried to read thru the Iskcon <b>moorkhavaadha</b> but could not bear to sit thru the bile and hate Iskcon has. (I am yet to read Sri Bhashyam, but I do not know when So you have a point there. But I ask you to read just ONE text. The Mandukya Upanishad - the King among Upanishads.. Can you post your understanding of it?)

Also, watch what you call "sectarian".

I do watch. I deliberate, and then I call it sectarian. Iskcon for example is one.

As you've seen, the Vivekananda types are more active in spouting ethnic chaivinism, interfaith polemic and other sorts of political rhetoric. This guy "bharatvarsh" doesn't even seem to have much respect for the bona fides of a guru-shishya parampara!

Anyways, just thought I'd make a point on this forum. Ramana ji on BRF pointed me here. Hari bol.

Welcome to the forum, we would be glad to hear your views that STRENGTHENS the discussion. You may want to treat members with respect instead of name-calling. We do like your motives, and hopefully we play on the same team on finding commonalities rather than dissecting every finger and toenail to see which part of my body is really my body. Hinduism is a full whole unit. So stop dissecting on who is a REAL hindu, and who should be the pope of Hindus. I would like to see posts on how to attain Swaroopya siddhi.