05-13-2005, 08:16 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 13 2005, 09:01 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 13 2005, 09:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Those following Sanathan Dharama are Sanathanis. What is this Hindus? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>ramana</b> ji,
As per my understanding, sanatana dharma is a non-sectarian term, and is the same as the word "deen" used by Prophet Muhammad. It represents the original constitutional position of the Individual Soul w.r.t. the Supersoul, of Whom it is an infinitesimal part-and-parcel ("maamaiva-<b>amshaH</b>", BG), but not identical with.
In fact, terms like Ganapatya, Saiva, Vaishnava, etc also assume non-sectarian meanings ("sectarian" in the sociological sense), designating grades of development of consciousness. One could be a "Mohammedan", and be at the "Vaishnava" stage of spiritual development. One could be a Buddhist at the "Saiva" stage. One could be a member of "ISKCON" or whatnot and be at the "Ganapatya" stage.
Actually, every term in spiritual literature is a matter of <i>perception based on superimposed consciousness (adhyaasa)</i>. That is the explanation given of maya, the rope-and-snake analogy. Both the rope and snake exist, but mistaking one for the other due to imperfect senses and a dulled consciousness ("kuntha" as opposed to "vaikuntha") is maya. Therefore the twin terms mahamaya and yogamaya.
Hindu, OTOH, is a purely ethnic term, and a very broad one at that. In fact, its definition has changed with the changing political climate in the subcontinent. At one time in the past, Indian converts to Islam were referred to as 'Hindu Mussalmaans". But even after the Islamic invasions, the 'Hindus' weren't referring to themselves by that label. But in time, when speaking to Muslims, they started referring to themselves as 'Hindu', but among themselves they wouldn't use that term. Then gradually even that changed, and they started referring to themselves as 'Hindu' even while speaking with one another.
As I said, this can be used to leverage significant social capital in many circumstances, but it should not be at the risk of a creeping ignorance of the spiritual heritage and its specifics, which has been the trend thus far. Defensive ideology (masquerading as supercilious chauvinism) cannot be made the reason to fabricate and popularize a particular theological point of view, as Vivekananda publicly admits to doing. This sort of mish-mash causes endless confusion, and makes a mockery of several Vedic concepts and literatures.
<b>sunder</b> prabhu,
As I said, I will be happy to take you up on the Mandukya Upanishad (from which you quote selectively) -- and many other Upanishads apart from the select dozen that folks like you have heard of. I will be happy to talk with you about sarupya, sayujya, sarshti, samipya, salokya mukti, etc also. But not now. No time, plus you still need to chill out. You should take a bit of your own advice. I first posted about the point I've been discussing with <b>rajesh_g</b> and ramana ji. It was you and a couple of other baiters who started jumping around like tadpoles at the mere mention of Vaishnavism or "ISKCON", attacking a casual newcomer and expecting him to get into an exegesis of shastra on this thread.
<b>ramana</b> ji,
As per my understanding, sanatana dharma is a non-sectarian term, and is the same as the word "deen" used by Prophet Muhammad. It represents the original constitutional position of the Individual Soul w.r.t. the Supersoul, of Whom it is an infinitesimal part-and-parcel ("maamaiva-<b>amshaH</b>", BG), but not identical with.
In fact, terms like Ganapatya, Saiva, Vaishnava, etc also assume non-sectarian meanings ("sectarian" in the sociological sense), designating grades of development of consciousness. One could be a "Mohammedan", and be at the "Vaishnava" stage of spiritual development. One could be a Buddhist at the "Saiva" stage. One could be a member of "ISKCON" or whatnot and be at the "Ganapatya" stage.
Actually, every term in spiritual literature is a matter of <i>perception based on superimposed consciousness (adhyaasa)</i>. That is the explanation given of maya, the rope-and-snake analogy. Both the rope and snake exist, but mistaking one for the other due to imperfect senses and a dulled consciousness ("kuntha" as opposed to "vaikuntha") is maya. Therefore the twin terms mahamaya and yogamaya.
Hindu, OTOH, is a purely ethnic term, and a very broad one at that. In fact, its definition has changed with the changing political climate in the subcontinent. At one time in the past, Indian converts to Islam were referred to as 'Hindu Mussalmaans". But even after the Islamic invasions, the 'Hindus' weren't referring to themselves by that label. But in time, when speaking to Muslims, they started referring to themselves as 'Hindu', but among themselves they wouldn't use that term. Then gradually even that changed, and they started referring to themselves as 'Hindu' even while speaking with one another.
As I said, this can be used to leverage significant social capital in many circumstances, but it should not be at the risk of a creeping ignorance of the spiritual heritage and its specifics, which has been the trend thus far. Defensive ideology (masquerading as supercilious chauvinism) cannot be made the reason to fabricate and popularize a particular theological point of view, as Vivekananda publicly admits to doing. This sort of mish-mash causes endless confusion, and makes a mockery of several Vedic concepts and literatures.
<b>sunder</b> prabhu,
As I said, I will be happy to take you up on the Mandukya Upanishad (from which you quote selectively) -- and many other Upanishads apart from the select dozen that folks like you have heard of. I will be happy to talk with you about sarupya, sayujya, sarshti, samipya, salokya mukti, etc also. But not now. No time, plus you still need to chill out. You should take a bit of your own advice. I first posted about the point I've been discussing with <b>rajesh_g</b> and ramana ji. It was you and a couple of other baiters who started jumping around like tadpoles at the mere mention of Vaishnavism or "ISKCON", attacking a casual newcomer and expecting him to get into an exegesis of shastra on this thread.