I am no longer Hindu

Spirituality Religion
#45

A Hindu who never worships any god except Shiva, but doesn’t object to his neighbour’s worshipping Krishna or Durga, fails the test of monotheism.

A Shiva worshiper does not object to a Krishna or Durga worshipper, because he understands they are worshiping the same god. Most Hindus you talk to will tell you there is only one god, but infinite are his forms. This is hardly just a modern Neo-Vedanta tack on or a response to Christian monotheism, it is as old as the Vedas, “There is only one supreme truth, with many names like Indra, Varuna, Aryaman” “There is only one without a second, not two or three, four or five, six or seven” “In the beginning there was only one, and nothing else”

In classical Vedanta of the Upanishads this ONE is called Brahman. The supreme, infinite, absolute reality. There can only be one infinite. Multiplicity is explained as Brahman appearing in infinite forms in reality through the power of maya. Hence the concept of Nirguna Brahman and Sadguna Brahman; Brahman without attributes and qualities and Brahman conceptualized by humans as having attributes and qualities(Brahman as the divine architect, Vishvakarma; Brahman as the fire divine, Agni; Brahman as the supreme lord, Indra; Brahman as the vital force, Vayu) Vedanta enjoins one to directly worship, meditate and contemplate on Nirguna Brahman. In the Chandogya Upanishad when a sage approaches King Janaka with instructions on meditation, the sage tells him to meditate on various forms such as light, wind etc, King Janaka keeps falsifying him, “No, one should not meditate on light, but should meditate on the principle of luminosity, the supreme light of Brahman” Whatever Sadguna Brahman the sage tells, Janaka falsifies it with the Nirguna Brahman.

In principle it is recognized in Hinduism that worshipping Sadguna Brahman is considered an inferior practice(Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo echo the same) because effectively you are worshiping only human imagination. Even the Agamas recognize this is an inferior practice, brought on by Kaliyuga, where people’s intellect is too unrefined to work with Nirguna Brahman. Guru Nanak reformed Hinduism to form Sikhism by getting rid of Sadguna Brahman worship and replacing it with Nirguna Brahman. This is why in the famous Mool Mantra of the Sikhs we find:

Ek Onkar: There is only supreme reality
Sat Naam: He is the true name
Karta Purka: He is the supreme creator
Nir Bahu: He is fearless
Nir vair: He is without discrimination
Akal Murat: He is absolutely formless and timeless
Ajuni: He is beyond birth and death
Sai Bhang: He is self-existent
Gur Purshad: He is realized by the true guru’s grace
Jap: Mediate on his name
Aad Sach: He was true in the timeless beginning
Jagad Sach: He is true through the ages
Hai Bhi Sach: He is true now
Nanak Hosi Bhi Sack: Nanak says, he will always be true

All practicing Sikhs chant this mantra everyday. It is thus clear that Sikhism does not at all endorse idolatry. It is fundamentally opposed to the spirit of it. Very much like classical Vedanta of the Upanishads or Advaita of Sankara is. The practice of creating Sadguna Brahman image is considered completely unnecessary and the practice of the lowest denominator of spiritual seekers, who worship human imagination, mythical creatures. It really is not necessary, because all you need to do is simply remember god(Naam Simran) in your heart. Sit quietly with yourself and dedicate yourself to god. You do not need to go to any temple or erect statues and worship them every day - none of this fanfare and grandiosity is required, moreover it is distracting. Just quietly go within yourself. There god resides.

#46

If somebody tells me they can’t sit quietly and meditate and pray to god, but need to go to a temple and worship statues of gods and goddesses, perform elaborate and complicated rituals to them and consecrate them, then it tells me exactly at what level of spiritual maturity they are at. They are akin to a child’s love for Santa clause. Alas, at least the child actually eventually grows out of it.

#47

Yoga is yoga.
The intention is to wake up and free our minds from suffering. annamaya kosha is first. Asana opens the door for deeper exploration. pranamaya kosha is second , and is more subtle, it cannot be seen but can be felt. manamaya kosha is the third layer, and aligns with the nervous system, and also relates to the mind, thoughts, and emotions. Meditation taps into this space and can help to bring awareness to thought patterns. All of these layers can be penetrated simultaneously, and is a beautiful process of self ultimately reveals ?

#48

The tradition that Sarva follows is known as Vaishnavism(Vishnu-centered tradition) who worship the supreme personality/godhead in the form of Vishnu, Krishna, Narayana. Most Hindus today are Vaishnavists. Most Vaishnavists are dualists, in that they believe that the world, god and soul are all real and separate from one another(known as tattvavada, the philosophy of reality) This is stark contrast to the Upanishadic Advaita, which believe that the world, god and soul are ultimately unreal, simply forms or manifestations of the ultimate reality of Brahman(The philosophy I subscribe to)

According to to Vaishnavists god has a supreme form and he is the source of all glorious qualities and virtues. He is perfect, only one, par excellence and none can parallel him.
While many Vaishnavists consider god as having no human form or particular name, the Gaudiya Vaishnavists consider god to literally be Krishna, have his form and his names. Thus they oppose any other description or name of him(e.g., Shiva, or Jehova, or Allah)

There are some Vaishnavists who consider themselves one with god or god themselves, but they are a minority viewpoint and not representative of Vaishnavism as a whole. Most Vaishnavists see god as a completely separate entity and sovereign of the world and souls. This supreme godhead is controlling everything in the world, every atom and every soul(Hence he is known as Antaryamin(inner controller) too) Thus nothing is in our individual control, no amount of personal effort made by us is enough for us to attain salvation. Salvation can only be WON through’s god’s grace.

To win god’s grace one must serve him, please him and worship him constantly. At the same time they must perform service to the world and other souls in the world, perform all their duties selflessly. If god is pleased with the soul, then god will reward that soul by granting them entry into heaven(Vaikuntha) and there the soul will be given the privilege to be in eternal servitude to god(sounds great, can’t wait :P) It gets better, there will a gradation in which level of heaven one would enter, based on the soul itself. This is not based on their merit(karma), but on the intrinsic qualities of the soul. If the soul was originally tamasic, it will enter the lower levels; rajasic, it will enter the intermediate levels and sattvic, it will enter the higher levels. There is no scope for any mobility here between levels, you are stuck at the level you are predestined for.

For souls that displease god there is a more morbid future awaiting: eternal damnation. Where the soul enters one of the 7 hells where it is subjected to endless torture.

I can hear people say, 'Hang on, is that Hinduism or some Abrahamic religion?" Unfortunately, it is Hinduism. In fact it is the most popular form of Hinduism today. Most Hindus believe in this Puranic form of Hinduism. In the Garuda Purana you will find extensive descriptions of the kind of torture that we are subjected to in hell for displeasing god. In other Puranas you will find extensive descriptions of the 7 heavens and the beings who populated them, the fun and frolics, the heavenly nymphs dancing to please men, as if straight out of an Islamic scripture.

If you examine Puranic Hinduism you will find the same dogma, nonsense, fairy tales, superstitions and unscientific theologies to give any Abrahamic religionist a run for his money. The description of Puranic astronomy for example makes Christian flat earthers look a little sensible:

This of course has got nothing to do with the original Santana Dharma of the Vedas. As I demonstrated earlier, the original Sanatana dharma is a religion of spiritual humanism which promotes spiritual development, social development and scientific development. It has no place for the garbage of Puranic Hinduism.

#49

[B]Refuting Madhvacharya[/B]

Madhvacharya is a key philosopher of Vasihnavism, and this thinking is used by many Vaishnava thinkers to justify their doctrines. He was the first Hindu philosopher to create an Abrahamic like theology: An absolute and all powerful monotheistic monarch god, that creates etc the universe, that is served by a hierarchy of spiritual beings(like anglels) that resides in heaven(Vaikunta) that grants eternal salvation to souls that please him and eternally damnation to souls that displease him.

In this post I am going to refute the philosophy of Madvacharya as described here: http://www.tatvavada.org/eng/

[B]The Supremacy of Lord Vishnu[/B]
Madhvacharya recognizes that no single name can be used to denote god, but a special preference is given to the name ‘Vishnu’ or ‘Narayana’ because they sum up the meaning of god as being the repository of all virtue and glories. According to Madhva Lord Vishnu created this world and conducts the activities of nature and all souls by his free will. The goal of all souls is to recognize his supremacy and worship him to attain salvation.

Refutation: If the lord is the repository of all glories and virtues qualities, then who is the repository of all negative qualities like anger, jealousy, lust, hate? It seems completely arbitrary that only qualities that one recognizes as ‘good’ belong to him, and all qualities we recognize as ‘bad’ belong to something else. Surely, if god is the creator and conducter of the whole universe, then the bad qualities also come from him. In which case god cannot be just all that is good, he also has to be all that is bad.

If god is creating and conducting this universe out of his own free will, for what Vaishnavists call his sport(lila) then such a god can be considered a sadist. As what they consider just play for them, is actually immense suffering for his souls. Why subject them to the torment just for his own entertainment? Such a god must definitely be a sadist.

This god is surely a tyrant. To gain favour with this god one must worship him and then he will grant you grace and entry into heaven - for - eternal servitude to him. In other words the only purpose souls have in this creation is to serve god, else face eternal damnation. Such a god can only be called a tyrant.

Thus we are to conclude that Lord Vishnu is the source of not only just goodness, but evil, and a sadist and a tyrant.

[B]Different souls[/B]
Madhvacharya proclaims that there are infinite souls, each with different qualities of their own. They simply are the way they are because of their intrinsic nature. Like an apple seed can only ever give an apple. In the same way all souls are intrinsically different, none are equal. This is proven in nature that nothing is actually identical, everything is different. It is the difference that maintains the unity of the world. The fact that some souls gain liberation faster than others is because of their intrinsic merit. He also recognizes the soul is not the body, senses or mind. The true ‘I’ is the blissful personality of the soul.

Refutation: The argument that there must be many different souls because everything within nature is different is an invalid comparison and cannot be used to apply to souls as well, because souls are not natural things. The idea that each have their own unique special personality is not tenable, because whatever they have that gives them a unique personality is owing to different senses, bodies and minds. If the soul is not the the senses, bodies and minds, then there is nothing which can give it a personality. Therefore all souls must be exactly identical.

There are some major contradictions in the Madhva’s philosophy on the whole. One one hand it says that god is the supreme sovereign who is controlling everything(including the souls) and the other hand this same god is granting grace and punishing the souls for pleasing or displeasing him. But if he is the controller of everything, then he made the souls do acts to please and displease him in the first place. So how can they be held accountable for those acts? These souls seem to have no free will at all. They are mere pieces in a game of chess played by only one player: god.

It is easy to see simply how ridiculous and absurd it is to believe in a personal god like Lord Vishnu. This is why such kind of monotheistic beliefs in a personal god has historically never been a part of the Vedic religion. Most Vedic philosophical schools are atheist.

#50

Here is an Abrahamic argument by Muslim scholar Dr Zakir Naik against idol worship and the arguments of Hindus to support the practice:

The Hindu argument is that although they know that idol worship is an inferior practice, it is considered necessary at lower levels of consciousness. At higher levels one can lose the idol. This is literally setting up Zakir Nail for proclaiming, “In that case, we have already reached higher levels of consciousness and don’t need idols” All Hindus who Zakir Naik have debated regarding this question, have been rendered speechless on this topic. Why?

Well because of of the very fact that idol worship is not sanctioned in the Vedas or the Gita, but rather is actually condemned. So how can you hold any credibility for practicing something which is not supported by the central scriptures of your own religion, and which is widely considered an inferior practice even within your own religion? Secondly, when the Hindu himself is recognizing it is an inferior practice, why are they practicing it? Why not practice the higher practice to begin with.

Hindus are doing a horrible job representing their religion. They are putting their worst foot forward. They are allowing themselves to be known for idol worship, mythology, bizarre rituals and practices, and millions of gods and goddesses, which includes monkeys and elephants, rather than allowing themselves to be known for their profound philosophy and Yoga. This is why I have chosen to dissociate from Hinduism. Hindus are their own worst enemy and have greatly trivialized the great cosmic and eternal religion they have inherited. This is why they are condemned people.

The original Sanatana dharma, the Aryan religion, did not teach any of the garbage that Hinduism is known for today. The countless stories of Shiva, Vishnu, Devi that fill the Puranic lore are nowhere to be found in the Vedas. They are completely made up stories.

#51

You are no longer Hindu.

Good for you and for the other Hindus:)

#52

Lol, I can see a plague or a flood coming and wiping out the Hindu idolaters a la biblical style :wink:
Some people simply never learn.

#53

Lol, I am posting in this forum after a long time.
At last, our “Columbus” discovered India/Hinduism and trying to run away from it. :slight_smile:

Writing big, big intellectual “fundas” on internet might not help any seeker of Hinduism.
I do not think, it is wise to go to a swim in a sea with suit, trousers and tie on.
Similarly, if you are in India, one need to adopt the appropriate style of life.

Some things that I want to point out:

  1. If one wants a true “guru”, then that is oneself. Nowhere in vedas or any scriptures it is said that Guru and student have to be different persons…!!! (as far as I know)

  2. In some of his posts earlier in this forum, SD was saying he is “conquering the world” so that it submits to Aryan/Vedic stuff and hence to Hinduism. Same SD, can not come and live for a few days in India. So much for “conquering”…!!!

  3. One should not live in delusions. It is some sort of mental disorder. I am giving this advice because, I, myself is inflicted with delusions and taking medicines for the same.

  4. Do not be too serious about “Vedic” stuff and neglect your personal life.

#54

  1. One cannot be ones own guru, one still needs spiritual guidance and validation externally. I hold a weaker stance now on finding the one and true enlightened master, but mainly because such beings are difficult to find and are outnumbered by fake gurus, that it is a futile to search for them. Thus, one should instead aim to practice spirituality in their life while living actively with other people to get external validation

  2. India has got nothing to with being Vedic/Aryan. India is not at all a Vedic or Aryan country today. I have maintained this position even before I went to India, now I just more strongly advocate it. So nothing much has changed other than the intensity of my conviction and my articulation of it.

  3. I do not have any delusional disorder. I am considered by most people to be a sensible, sane and level headed person, and some of my friends are mental health professionals. No diagnosis of anything and no prescriptions of medicine. Please do not mistake your situation to be my situation.

  4. I am serious about Vedic stuff, because it pertains directly to my personal life and how my life should be lived. I live my life by its central principle of self development.

#55

Thus, one should instead aim to practice spirituality in their life while living actively with other people to get external validation

Yes…it is a form of guru-student concept. Only thing is one may not formally give the “other people” the tag of a guru. The story of Ekalavya is another example.

  1. “Vedic/Aryan”, to me is a concept of a set of principles on many fields of human development. If the expectation is that, India should be a country…where everybody breathes Gayatri Mantra and L.K.G kids are taught Yoga and Sanskrit is spoken as a national language…then one may be easily disappointed.

  2. If one is really serious about “vedic stuff” and spirituality in general, I think even the western science is coming closer to what vedic knowledge says. It may take some more years of further development…but surely western science is understanding the greatness of “vedic knowledge”.

Some stuff for exploration:
–>Integral OS. This one to me is actually Vedic knowledge even though the speaker gets it from Budhism.

–>Ingo Swann - Human Super Sensitivities and the Future

–> Works of Robet Penrose…esp. shadows of the mind.

#56
  1. It is the Vedic principles which are important, and not the particular languages and forms you practice. That said if Yoga and Sanskrit was compulsory nationally in India, it would be only beneficial, as Yoga is the best form of mind-body training out there and Sanskrit is the most refined language.

However, ultimately what matters is the principles, and not the language and forms themselves.

#57

Yes…You are right…!!
Yoga is the best form of mind-body training and Sanskrit is the most refined language.

However, I do not know when our Indian government and many of Indian citizens really understand this and change for the better…!!

I was just listening to two Sanskrit songs on my iPod and that gives me a feeling of “high-happy” mood than a beer can give me. I just studied Sanskrit for two years…!!

#58

WOW…I love this thread, to be honest i’ve been skulking around for the past week just reading what you guys have had to say. It’s incredibley enlightning. Alot of what ‘Surya Deva’ says regarding india’s current state, hindusim itself i’am inclined to agree simply because i’ve experienced alot of these things myself. I’ve always questioned alot of the things devout hindus do and what hindusim really is and what it represents. After doing some light reading into Vedic history and religion I realise modern day hindusim is not what ancient vedic was. Why is this? it seems over time ancient indian culture has been diluted and changed to serve uneccesary purposes and agendas and for ones convenience. Pure ignorance.

Sd you said something which actually took me by surprise though, something about giving up hope on india and its people I thought that was a quite a Nihilist view of things, we don’t know whats going to happen for sure.

I suppose it boils down to how quickly and how much we can unearth about the ancient vedic. Once we discover the total truth ahd shove it in peoples faces…they simply won’t be able to deny it.

Anyway this is simply my opinion and point of view, I don’t mean to cause any offence or anything, I being ignorant myself simply wish to know the truth.

i typed up the difference between hindusim and vedic and this is one answer i got,

"I will answer it from a historical perspective instead of a religious one because religiously Vedic faith has been followed from the very beginning of mankind.

Hinduism isn’t a religion in a strict sense. It is an umbrella term for various indian theological traditions whereas Vedic religion was more organised religion with well defined parameters.

It isn’t really possible to differentiate between the two because of the vagueness of term “hinduism”. In present scenario followers of vedic faith are also classified as a hindu and it is an irony of ironies because hinduism itself has its roots in vedic faith.

Some MAJOR differences are -

  1. Vedic religion was based on Vedas alone. Secondary scriptures were of little importance.

  2. It was monotheistic in strict sense. Devas represented the forces of nature and some represented moral values.

  3. Pilgrimages fasting, caste system, discrimination against any Varna were absent. Smritis are post vedic and not shrutis, and except vegetaranianism and nonviolence all other concepts were part (or have roots in vedas) of Vedic india unlike what first answerer suggested.

  4. Homam (havan) was the most commonly practised form of worship. Followers of vedic faith didn’t believe in incarnations so present deities like Rama, Krishna and other avatars were absent. They might be revered but not worshipped then.

Most remarkable feature of Vedic faith was the treatment of Women. There is no other religion in the world in which women excogitated and composed the most sacred scripture of the faith. Many mantras of Vedas were composed by rishikas (female seers) like gargi, matreyi etc.

How and why Vedic religion transformed into Hinduism ?

Transformation of Vedic religion into hinduism did more harm than good (to society and not to religion per se) but changes happen and are sometimes inevitable. Without taking sides here, i would just like to point out that transformation was the need of the hour. There were some selfish motives behind this transformation. Selfish motives were twofold. First was to strengthen Vedic religion which wasn’t bad though but the second one, driven by a want to establish social supremacy through caste system and legalising it by manusmriti, which corrupted the society was morally reprehensible.

Buddhism gained many converts from the followers of Vedas. To an extent, it was necessary to incorporate more unique ideas which can challenge buddhism.

To a lesser extent, Jainism also influenced Vedic religion and present day Hinduism borrows some ideas from Jainism aswell.

Various history sources suggests that advent of Islam left a major impact on women’s treatment amongst other things. There was no puradah system in Vedic India. Women freely expressed their sexuality. There was no concept of sati either. Women were greatly revered and respected. It was only after Islam that status of women in hinduism lowered. After “Jauhars” of Rajasthan, Pardah akin to hijab started probably to avoid another rani roopmati incident. Husband’s supremacy over wives started.

Caste system became rigid. Hindu philosophy subverted and selfish self proclaimed brahmins, under the patronage of invaders, distorted Vedic culture. Manu smriti was also interpolated around the time muslims invaded india.

Best feature of present day Hinduism is that somewhat rigid vedic religion transformed into a more flexible religion which left perception of God (or of no god) to individual. Even atheists can classify themselves as Hindus.

Arya Samaj is the single largest group which still follows Vedic religion of Ancient India."

Was wondering though…where can i find sources/books w.e regarding the vedic (of highest authority and most accurate) also the history and theory behind the change from vedic to hindusim, simply for my own reading.

ty

Nik

#59

I don’t believe the Vedic religion was an organized religion at any point. I believe that the Vedic tradition was basically a culture and philosophy of a high civilization which had reached a high level of intellectual development. You will find that civilizations that reach a high level of intellectual/scientific development begin to become more spiritual as opposed to religious. In more primitive society there is a need for rigid social order and organized religion and gods. In a more advanced society, there is no need for rigid social order, organized religion and god, but a greater emphasis on science and technology.

Thus we will find that the current epoch we are living in actually a lot closer to the spirit of Vedic culture and philosophy, that there is no need to uncover anything. The principles of Vedic culture and philosophy are scientific development, spiritual development and social and ecological development and today we are in in an age where these values are considered the most important. In the future, I have no doubt we will be living in a Vedic world. This is why I said a time back America will become Hindu by the end of the century. What I really meant is that it will become Vedic.

#60

Some MAJOR differences are -

  1. Vedic religion was based on Vedas alone. Secondary scriptures were of little importance.
  1. It was monotheistic in strict sense. Devas represented the forces of nature and some represented moral values.
  1. Pilgrimages fasting, caste system, discrimination against any Varna were absent. Smritis are post vedic and not shrutis, and except vegetaranianism and nonviolence all other concepts were part (or have roots in vedas) of Vedic india unlike what first answerer suggested.
  1. Homam (havan) was the most commonly practised form of worship. Followers of vedic faith didn’t believe in incarnations so present deities like Rama, Krishna and other avatars were absent. They might be revered but not worshipped then.
  1. Yes, the Vedas were the principal texts. They were arranged by congregations of seers and sages across the country who came together and compiled the work and performed the ceremony of the havan/agni hotra while chanting the mantras. The earliest portion of the Vedas are the Samhitas. In order to assist the ceremonial practices the Brahmanas were later composed. Later still, the Aranyakas and and the Upanishads were composed. Collectively the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and the Upanishads are known as the Vedas. The Upanishads are known as Vedanta, meaning the end phase of the Vedas, because they come at the end of the ritual phase of the Vedic tradition and cover the philosophy of the Vedas. They purport to be articulating the philosophical meaning of the Vedas.

It is a controversial subject whether the Upanishads really do simply explain the philosophical meaning contained in the Vedas, or whether they create a new kind of interpretation and derive an entirely new philosophy which is not present within them. This depends on which translation of the Rig Veda you consult. In any case, it is not very important, because the Upanishads stand on their own.

The Upanishads are like the New Testimant of the Vedic religion, and the Samhita and Brahmanas and Aranyakas are the Old testimant. This is why the latter lost importance by the time of the Upanishads. Everything that we know about Hinduism today was developed in the Upanishads: The philosophy of Samkhya, Yoga, Karma and reincarnation, Brahman. These are the earliest texts to directly discuss and elaborate on these doctrines. The doctrines were further developed and systematized by the sadarshana, the famous six systems of Hindu philosophy: Samkhya, Vedanta, Vaiseshika, Yoga and Nyaya. Mimasa was the only school that remained committed to the OT ritual portion.

Effectively, what Hinduism is basically a system of philosophy and practical psychology developed in the Upanishads. From this we have the Samkhya-Yoga system, which is more a science than a philosophy. The predominant practices thus are self-inquiry, meditation and contemplation i.e Jnana. The predominant practice in the OT portion was the fire sacrifice(havan/agni hotra)

  1. It is more correct to say it was monistic, as opposed to monothiestic. There is an element of theism in the Upanishads, but it is largely eclipsed by the monistic idealism of Brahman. Brahman is not like a monarch god living in heaven, presiding over his creation, rewarding and punishing as in monothestic religions, but Brahman refers to the totality of existence itself i.e., Brahman is the universe. Brahman is the very substance or being or ultimate reality of existence. The Upanishads conclude Brahman = existence = bliss = consciousness. The best description of Brahman is that Brahman is pure consciousness.

  2. This is true, temple worship was not practiced in the Vedic religion. That is because there was no Shiva, Vishnu or Durga/Kali personal god concepts in those times. There was a concept of Deva’s, but deva were basically natural principles, or mental principles or abstract principles and these principles were invoked in the OT phase of Vedic times with fire sacrifices. The Devas were never treated like people.

  3. Yes, there were no incarnations in the Vedic religion. This is where the degeneration began in Hinduism when people started treating people like gods(a feature already found in Abrahamic religions) and started to form all kinds of images of god. The first person to be deified was Krishna, who was most likely a real historical person, a king, and people treated him like a divinity. Out of him the personality cult of Vaishnavism formed and various texts were written within the tradition like the Bhagvad Gita and then later the Puranas like the Bhagvata purana. Rival sects and personality cults developed over Shiva, Durga and other deities. These sects mushroomed by the thousands, and this has been going on ever since in India, sects form everyday.

A lot of the philosophy and practices by these various sects was borrowed directly from the Hindu philosophical schools. Hence you will find common to all sects in Hinduism the doctrines developed in the philosophical schools.

In order to justify the worship of these various gods new philosophies emerged like Dvaita and Vishvadvaita. I have covered the philosophy of Dvaita already above: It is basically very similar to Abrahamic theology: monarch like god living in heaven, presiding over his creation, rewarding and punishing souls. From this philosophy emerged the Bhakti movement and thence the strong devotional practices that characterize Hinduism today.

The Puranic and Bhakti phase of Hinduism is basically reverting to old ritualism mentality that the Upanishads rose against and ended. The rituals in the Vedic age were simple fire sacrifices, but the rituals in the Puranic age became overly complicated and bizarre ringing the bell x amount of times, going around the temple x amount of time, fasting for x amount of days, going up and down the steps on to the temple x amount of time, feeding food and milk to statues. The practices have become increasingly bizarre and vary from sect to sect.

The intellectual and spiritual temper of the Upanishads which lead to such a brilliant intellectual and prosperous culture in early India, was replaced by the sentimental, fairy-tale and childish temper of the Puranas, and since then India has gone downhill, ravaged by invasions, steeped into superstition, hypocrisy and caste system. India has been a degenerating civilization for the last 2000 years, and it was punished horribly for its karma in the last 1000 years where it was invaded left, right and center by the Mughals, the Portugese, Dutch and and British.

Indian civilization today is a highly volatile and fragmented society. They fight amongst each other like children and as they fight among each other outside forces capitalize and divide them by pitting them against each other. Notice, how Sarva a Hindu nationalist, is siding with Asuri a Christian fundamentalist known for his anti-Hindu sentiments, against me an Indian with strong affinity with Hindu philosophy. They are palling up with one another forming an alliance against me. This is exactly how the British were able to subjugate India. Indians never learn, they fight among each other and allow foreign powers to divide them and invite them in lol This is why I say Indians are a condemned people. I see no future for Indian people. Such a hopelessly divided people are easy prey for a more organized and unified nation like China to subjugate. That is exactly what I predict is going to happen. India is doomed.

#61

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I’ve never bothered to read this thread before, and I’ve only read from Bheem’s post on down. Lo and behold here is Surya Deva making false statements about me. (In a court of law that is known as libel, by the way.)

For the record I do not consider myself to be a Christian fundamentalist, nor would any Christian fundamentalist accept me as one of them, because of my lack of involvement in their churches and my interest in yoga and other Indian philosophies. Neither am I anti-Hindu. I never had a problem with hindus until I encountered a few hostiles posting on this forum. I’m not crazy about Shankara and his advaita vedanta, but that doesn’t mean I’m anti-hindu.

Surya Deva needs to stop this nonsense.

#62

Asuri is not the typical Christian fundamentalist and he is right that no Christian fundamentalist would accept him, because of his affinity for yoga, Samkhya and other Indian philosophies. However, that does not change the fact that Asuri appropriates these philosophies and distorts them to fit his Christian worldview. What he is doing is arguably worse than a conventional Christian fundamentalist, he is undermining the philosophical viewpoint, framework and uniqueness of an entirely different tradition of philosophy by forcing into a Christian paradigm.
This is one of the biggest complains of Eastern cultures against the West, that rather than the West showing real sincere and genuine interest in their cultures, the West seeks to assimilate and appropriate their culture, philosophy and arts as part of the larger and more superior Western category, hence undermining their own.

My gripe with Asuri is that he is distorts and misrepresents the philosophical tradition of India and attempts to reduce it to Western ways of thinking, and he is simply too arrogant to acknowledge that he doing it. On several occasions I have caught him reducing Samkhya to Cartesian dualism(Christian dualism) and despite me showing him the obvious differences between the two, he still has not corrected his mistakes. He is thus consciously undermining Samkhya. I have also caught him undermining Yoga by denying that Yoga is the total quietening of the mind, despite the fact that in the Eastern tradition of philosophy the quietening of the mind is accepted universally as the modus operandi of all spiritual practices.

What Asuri is doing is more insidious and dangerous than a regular Christian fundamentalist, because he is misleading people by misrepresenting the Indian philosophical tradition. I will summarize all the misrepresentations I have seen him do so far:

  1. Presenting Samkhya as an anti-Vedic philosophy and fabricating a conspiracy theory how the Hindus oppressed the Samkhya thinkers - The truth is that Samkhya considers itself a pro-Vedic philosophy, accepts the authority of the Vedas and even cites from the Vedas to support its conclusions. Samkhya is a Hindu philosophy and therefore Samkhya philosophers were all Hindu.

Asuri’s agenda in doing this is to distance Samkhya-Yoga from Hinduism and to make it seem more like brethren with Christianity.

  1. Presenting Yoga as just a discipline to control negative thoughts, while keeping the positive ones - the truth is Yoga makes no value judgements on any thoughts, it considers them all to be undesirable(vice and virtue) and ultimately all need to be extinguished and silenced.

Asuri’s agenda here is to make Yoga seem like a discipline that can aid Christian practice of sifting out virtuous thought from viceful thought.

  1. Presenting Vedanta as a belief system, oppressive religion, purely based on dogma fro scripture: The truth is Vedanta is a philosophy, and a widely influential and highly regarded philosophy both in the East and the West, and it has emerged as the strongest philosophy in Hindu philosophy because it presents the most consistent worldview and the one most aligned with the Vedas.

Again Asuri agenda here is to undermine Hindu philosophy by presenting its main school of philosophy as just another religion or belief system, ignoring its sophistication, bringing it down to the level of Christianity.

  1. Presenting the SPS, a late medieval text as the foundational text of Samkhya, ignoring the classical text of the school the Karika. The truth is, the Karika is the oldest extant text of the school and this is not a controversial issue at all in scholarship and one will find in any encyclopedia the karika named as the oldest and defining text of the school.

In this case there is no Christian agenda I can identify, other than the fact that the late Samkhya thinkers(SPS) accept a god separate from other souls(which is more aligned with Christian doctrine) Asuri is just being a stubborn pig-head by not accepting what is widely considered fact in the academic world.

#63

Asuri’s agenda for everybody to see:

05-29-2011, 11:31 AM #62
Asuri
sah?sra Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,359
I got interested in Samkhya-Yoga philosophy because it is rational and seemed more suitable for western minds than the idealistic Vedanta. I also like yoga for the health benefits. But then you have these nimrods trying to say that Hindus need to be in charge of all things remotely related to Yoga and Hinduism. They’re actually trying to impose their caste system on us.

It is true that at some time in the remote past there was a melding of two cultures, the rational and relatively more civilized people, from which the Samkhya originated were dominated by the relatively less civilized people who were obsessed with the worship of naturalistic gods. The insistence that there could be no divergence from the Vedas was the action of a conquering people. This is still being perpetuated to this day with the insistence that there was never any convergence of cultures, and that only caste Hindus are qualified in the areas of yoga and philosophy.

Yoga and the philosophies that originated in India are not the property of any religion. We are free to study and interpret them as we see fit. I still find Yoga and Samkhya-Yoga philosophy to have some value, but you can keep Hinduism. I don’t want it.

Note then:

I got interested in Samkhya-Yoga philosophy because it is rational and seemed more suitable for western minds than the idealistic Vedanta. I also like yoga for the health benefits.

As I showed above his only interest in Samkhya-Yoga is to appropriate it to Western thinking. His only interest in Yoga is to reduce to a system of exercise for the West.

We are free to study and interpret them as we see fit. I still find Yoga and Samkhya-Yoga philosophy to have some value, but you can keep Hinduism. I don’t want it.

Here we can say how explicitly Asuri separates Samkhya-Yoga from Hinduism. As a Christian who has interest in Samkhya-Yoga which are Hindu philosophies and practices, Asuri is more comfortable with Samkhya-Yoga by first separating it from Hinduism, creation a false division between Samkhya-Yoga and Hinduism, and then appropriating and reducing it into Western thinking.

#64

You are accusing Asuri for things you are doing yourself. You are looking at Sanatana Dharma from your own western and modernist bias of philosophy, phychology and neo-vedanta biased universalism. You yourself have repeatedly denounced Hinduism, now you are accusing Asuri for doing the same. You are the biggest threat here, because you are loudest in declaring your view is the one and only true version of Sanatana Dharma, just like a Christian fundamentalist.

You have even praised Christians in this threat for not having a pluralistic attitude of religion. You are holding the Sankhya karika as the single most authority on Sankhya philosophy, just like a Christian would do with a Bible or maybe even to set up a strawman, because you can’t argue against other views of Sankhya. You have even refered to the upanishads as the “new testament” of Hinduism. All this betrays that you are much closer to Christian fundamentalism than anyone else on this forum.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

“The camel cannot see the crookedness of its own neck”

“If your house is of glass, don’t throw rocks at others”

“The pot calling the kettle black”