[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36301]
By the way meditation is older than Buddhism as well. It’s first mentioned in the Hindu scriptures :D[/QUOTE]
Oh, you got me there:)
I’m not arguing that Yoga is NOT hinduism. It does not bother me at all. My point is that it is becoming non-hindu practice. Whether we like it or not Yoga will have different meaning and it is already not associated with hinduism for many average people (who not interested on religions and philosophies) .
SuryaDeva,
You seem to be a brave warrior on a wrong mission. Your library of knowledge and power of expression are impressive and momentarily mesmerising. But when one sees a veiled desire to win, hidden pleasure of using knowledge as a weapon, one wonders whether your intent is pious. It may be passionate and befitting in defense of an “ism”, but certainly not Yoga. Religions divide, Yoga coalesces.
Even as Sanatan, Hinduism is defined by the people - their values, beliefs, and way of living - that changes with the changing reality of the times.
Yoga is un-changing and timeless. Yoga may be Hinduism’s best symbol, an identity; but it is certainly not their property. We, Hindu-Indians, invented number zero; do we claim its world rights? The moment a non-Hindu uses a zero does he become a Hindu? Let us not make our sacred religion so cheap.
Yoga is a goal. It can be reached in many ways. Hinduism is a very strong contender. But not the only one. As some people commenting here have imagined, Vedas is not “a book/scripture” it is called a “river of knowledge”; knowledge that has disparate, diverse and distinct straits all leading to the divine ultimate truth. Yoga and Hinduism owe their origin to the Vedas. But one has remained a treatise of timeless knowledge for the whole humanity while the other has flown down the annals of time spreading that knowledge but letting the recipients take it and shape it.
SuryaDeva, I have been one of your admirers on the Forum, but I think you have shown enough conviction in your belief as well as enough disdain for others’. Of late, many Indians have realized how great Yoga is and suddenly re-discovered it as their “lost” heritage. And here, a few “experts” are embracing the timeless wonder as a business opportunity and creating their Yoga brands since making money is the most respectable way of life. Both are holding Yoga a hostage to earn some borrowed glory. And in their crossfire, sincere practitioners are left more confused.
Its interesting question why any good and noble person may oppose this goal. I think there are many good and noble people here on the forum who feel bit opposed to this idea. It may be little quest for you to find why they have such reaction. To truly get to the roots of the problem (without quick classification), to the source of aversion.
I believe I know the answer to this question. If you look through a description of the Upanishads, which are part of the Vedas, you will find references to many gods and instructions on how they are to be worshipped. People from Christian backgrounds are extremely leery about getting involved with anything that involves gods other than their own. Other people just aren’t interested in religion or philosophy at all.
Also, I have a problem with the notion that Hinduism is defined by the philosophy, which is contained in the darsanas. I think Hinduism is defined not by the darsanas, but by the Vedas, and the Vedas contain a lot more than just philosophy. I don’t want to pose this as an outsider telling a Hindu how his religion is defined, but more of a question: Is Hinduism defined by the darsanas or by the Vedas? If it is defined by the darsanas, then does Hinduism not include the gods and worship practices described in the Upanishads?
True, its first commandment in Christianity about one God and not worshipping other “gods”. Mainly because they may be deamons pretending to be God (and aiming to delude people and trick them into abandoning God and his ways). So naturally when confronted with practice during which you have to worship some spiritual entities you feel very uncomfortable. I had the same problem during tantric practices and basically didn’t do them (I’m of Christian background). But I solved this problem when I learned about interpretation of those “gods” as aspects of our psyche. That would mean that they are externalised part of our more uncounscious parts of psyche, with which we can develop relationship throught such practices. That sounds more ok with me. But I’m not very familiar with Hinduism and not sure how prevelant this interpretation is…
[QUOTE=Asuri;36384]I believe I know the answer to this question. If you look through adescription of the Upanishads, which are part of the Vedas, you will find references to many gods and instructions on how they are to be worshipped. People from Christian backgrounds are extremely leery about getting involved with anything that involves gods other than their own. Other people just aren’t interested in religion or philosophy at all. [/QUOTE]
Namaste Suhas Tambe,
Thank you for your kinds words and compliments regarding myself.
I must win or be defeated when I am making any argument. It is not my ego which is at stake, but the truth. If I am holding onto a wrong conviction, it must go. If I am holding onto a right conviction, it must prevail.
I am currently holding very negative views about other religions, particularly Abahramic religions, and supremist views about my own religion. This is because so far the evidence I have seen supports these views. I have given an opportunity for others to refute me, but they have so far failed. In fact many have even agreed that, for example, the Abrahamic religion really does contain the unmitigated evil I have read myself within it. They agree that the history of violence is indeed present within it. Yet, for some reason today in modern times they are suddenly religions of peace. As somebody living in India you will know yourself that these so called religions of “peace” are still up to their old antics.
My point is clear as long these religions contain the doctrines that produced the violence in the first place, these religions will not change. These religions are in serious need of reform if they want to survive the test of a modern and civilised world. The Quran contains almost 150 verses which are violent, some directly ordaining violence and most simply condemning the infidels. In most Muslim countries this violence still goes on. The Christian Church still supports doctrines that everybody else is condemned and must be saved by making people accept Jesus. In India actual clergy members write defamatory literature on Hinduism, practices like burning pictures of Hindu gods and goddesses and trampling them under your feet are not uncommon missionary activities. So please tell me what wrong am I doing in demanding that these religions need reform?
All I am saying is we should not claim these religions are all of a sudden religions of peace when it is clear they are not. They need massive reform. This must be demanded by Christians and Muslims themselves. When I pointed out the ill activity Christians were doing on this forum, I noticed how few Christians condemned it. I am not seeing evidence for this “peace” anywhere. Even the great Mother Terresa did not help anybody unless they were converted to Christian.
Now coming onto the subject of Yoga/Santana Dharma. I find it interesting how you insist Yoga has remain unchanged, but Santana Dharma has changed. This is especially ironic, because you know yourself that Santana dharma means “Eternal religion” In other words it does not change. On the other hand Yoga techniques do change. For example biofeedback machines can be used to train the body-mind, and one does not have to go through traditional Yogic training. Mind-entrainment music can use certain sounds in order to induce varying levels of consciousness. In the future it maybe even possible to use artificial implants to awaken states of consciousness. Thus, I submit to you that Yoga techniques will change. However, what will not change is the basic scientific principles Yoga uses, which are what Hinduism is based on. The law of karma will remain the same, the metaphysics will remain the same, the structure of reality will remain the same, atman will remain the same, the spiritual anatomy will remain the same. In other words Hindusim/Santana dharma which encapsulates all these principles will remain the same. This is why it has been so aptly called the Eternal religion.
Techniques change; rituals change; symbols change but scientific laws do not change. Hinduism is that religion of the scientific laws - hence why it is the Vedic religion. It is a religion for scientists.
Regarding Hindu nationalism. Hindutva or Hindu natinalism has become a dirty world in the world today. However, it is not so dirty at all. As Hindu nationalism is not geographical, but cultural, and it refers to the Santana dharma, which Hindu people know as Bharatya Sanskriti. So Bharat/India defines the identity of a Hindu. All Hindus feel love for their motherland(matabhoomi) because it is more than just land, it is the land of the Vedas. We are the Aryans, the root civilisation of the world. We originated civilisation and our homeland is India. In the past we made whole world Aryan, and it is duty to make the world Aryan again. An Aryan world is a world that is based on Bharatya Sanskriti and Santana dharma. It is modelled on those scientific principles which govern the entire universe and therefore there is no other way for an advanced civilisation to be. All advanced civilisations in the universe are Aryan.
Regarding the definition of Hindusim being Vedic or darsana. They are both one and the same thing. The darsanas are simply expositions on the Vedic wisdom. The view that they are different is based on bad translations by early Western indologists, blinded by Aryan Invasion theory, who wanted to portray the original Vedic people as barbarians from Europe. This theory has now been discredited and it is known that the Vedic people were not barbarian at all, but the founders of the Indus valley civilisation. If the Vedas are translated properly by the vyakarana method there is no difference between the darsanas and the Vedas.
The source of the confusion that the Vedas are a polytheistic religion is becase they contain several hymns to different “Devas” which has been badly translated as gods. The actual translation is “the shining/luminous ones” the word deva is from the root div from which comes the word day, diya(light) The ancient Sanskrit dictionaries also offers an insightful synonym, “senses” So the devas are the luminous ones and equivalent to our senses hence they are part of the psychic apparatus. They control all of reality. There is a further clue in the Purusha Suktam as to what the Devas are. It mentions there are 4 parts to reality, of which 1 part is constantly being created and destroyed(manifest) and 3/4th are eternal(unmanifest) The Devas are the principles that operate in this eternal section and hence why they are eternal principles.
Brahma is the creative principle
Vishnu is the preserving principle
Shiva/Maheshwara is the destructive principle
Agni is the vital energy principle
Vayu is the vital breath/force principle
Indra is the intellectual principle
Soma is the mental principle
Good morning Surya Deva,
I am currently holding very negative views about other religions, particularly Abahramic religions, and supremist views about my own religion. This is because so far the evidence I have seen supports these views. I have given an opportunity for others to refute me, but they have so far failed. In fact many have even agreed that, for example, the Abrahamic religion really does contain the unmitigated evil I have read myself within it. They agree that the history of violence is indeed present within it. Yet, for some reason today in modern times they are suddenly religions of peace. As somebody living in India you will know yourself that these so called religions of “peace” are still up to their old antics.
I think many feel they have refuted your claims that these religions continue the violence of their past. Many have refuted that the doctrines of said religions teach violence. Many have refuted that these religions are primitive and barbaric. Many have refuted that these religions are dishonest. Many have refuted your interpretation of the doctrines of said religions. Maybe they have not refuted the info you have presented to your satisfaction. They have, however, to their own satisfaction. This debate seems to be a lose/lose situation. Again, I go to ‘short term thinking’. You cannot assume that if once something was, it will continue to be as is. The human body is ever changing isn’t it? Can you assume that the body you once had at age 21 is the same at age 52? (I wish, as 52 is my age! lol) Well, no you can’t. Just like you can’t assume that for as long as you remember, the sun has come up, so it WILL come up tomorrow. Too many unknown factors come into play.
Even the great Mother Terresa did not help anybody unless they were converted to Christian.
Would you mind expanding on this? I have always read and heard she was actually ridiculed by some for saying whether you are Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, etc., as long as you are true to your faith, heaven is yours. Curious to hear your take on this.
Many thanks.
BTW Surya Deva…saw your post stating you will not continue to refer to Hinduism as superior and I’d like to commend you on that. Thank you very much for posting that. It is appreciated.
yoga is a whole universal human practice. It belongs to all. Not for any one Religion.
I think many feel they have refuted your claims that these religions continue the violence of their past. Many have refuted that the doctrines of said religions teach violence. Many have refuted that these religions are primitive and barbaric. Many have refuted that these religions are dishonest. Many have refuted your interpretation of the doctrines of said religions. Maybe they have not refuted the info you have presented to your satisfaction. They have, however, to their own satisfaction. This debate seems to be a lose/lose situation. Again, I go to ‘short term thinking’. You cannot assume that if once something was, it will continue to be as is. The human body is ever changing isn’t it? Can you assume that the body you once had at age 21 is the same at age 52? (I wish, as 52 is my age! lol) Well, no you can’t. Just like you can’t assume that for as long as you remember, the sun has come up, so it WILL come up tomorrow. Too many unknown factors come into play.
Namaste,
The point must be refuted to the point of demonstration of the counter-point not to “satisfaction” I have already pointed out that the same antics still go on in these religions in most parts of the world. They still justify those scriptures, which contain the same verses that were used to justify violence in the past. The doctrines which condemn other religions(Christianity and Islam) and condemn all people on this planet as sinners(Christianity) are still there.
I see no evidence that much has changed at all. There can be change, but these religions must reform. There is evidence that certain sects of these religions have reformed in that some of them do to not condemn other religions, and do not teach original sin, but the majority is still very much the same. The majority needs to reform.
If even at the level of the US senate you get this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwI1GM-4ItI&feature=related
then it is pretty obvious what you get at the common level.
Would you mind expanding on this? I have always read and heard she was actually ridiculed by some for saying whether you are Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, etc., as long as you are true to your faith, heaven is yours. Curious to hear your take on this.
Many thanks.
I have read and heard the opposite. She would only help those who would agree to be converted to Christianity. I will find the info and produce it later. I have to go for now.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36391]
I am currently holding very negative views about other religions, particularly Abahramic religions, and supremist views about my own religion. This is because so far the evidence I have seen supports these views. I have given an opportunity for others to refute me, but they have so far failed.
The Christian Church still supports doctrines that everybody else is condemned and must be saved by making people accept Jesus.
[/QUOTE]
Your views are distorted because they are based on selective readings of scripture which are being used to support an ideology of hate. This is a most despicable tactic. If you want to get a sense of the true spirit of the Old Testament, you should read the Psalms of David and the Proverbs of Solomon.
I have shown you myself through the parable of the Wheat and the Tares that those who are condemned are “all things that offend, and those who do iniquity”, and the “righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father”. There is no requirement of belonging to any particular religion. This is the true teaching of the Christian faith, based on the words of the man himself. Yet you choose to ignore this because you don’t want to let go of your ideology. This is why most of the time, I refuse to engage in any discussion with you. Even when we prove our points, you refuse to acknowledge it, so trying to reason with you just a waste of time. You do not engage in rational discussion, you engage in verbal combat, and it is win at all costs.
Also, you should not view the teachings of the fundamentalist Christian groups that you are familiar with as representative of all of Christianity. There are many Christian denominations. Some of these fundamentalist groups make even us uncomfortable. And I agree that if they are going to do things like destroy images of Hindu gods, they should be prepared for some Hindus to get angry.
Surya, I tried to find something that wasn’t totally one way or the other about Mother Teresa. This is a passage from an article about someone who worked with her and how some of her views actually differ from catholicism.
We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Pages 81-82)
With such a statement we can only be left believing that she was more than a Catholic, but was a Universalist, believing essentially that all religion leads to the same God. Time and again we see her expounding such universalist beliefs. In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.”
Consider also the following quote from another source, “I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.” Or in another place, “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
We see, then, that Mother Teresa held beliefs that contradict many Biblical principles. Chief among these principles is that Christ is the only means of salvation.
Anyone else out there that knows more?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36392]
Regarding the definition of Hindusim being Vedic or darsana. They are both one and the same thing. The darsanas are simply expositions on the Vedic wisdom. The view that they are different is based on bad translations by early Western indologists, blinded by Aryan Invasion theory, who wanted to portray the original Vedic people as barbarians from Europe.
[/QUOTE]
Here is one example of where the truth has fallen victim to your desire to promote your ideology. The difference between the darsanas and the Vedas is that the darsanas do not mention:
Surya
Savithri
Brahma
Rama
Rudra
Shiva
Sarabha
Vishnu
Pasupathi
Ganapati
Sita
Parvati
Devi
Lakshmi
Saraswathi
Narasimha
Narayana
Krishna
Govinda
Hayagreeva, or
Dathathreya,
which are some of the gods and goddesses that are mentioned in the Upanishads. There is a clear distinction between philosophy and religion, and that is that philosophy is not about the gods and the worship of the gods. That is the province of religion. So even though some of us may have an affinity for some of the Hindu philosophy, or hatha yoga, that does not mean we share the same affinity for the Hindu religion. And if we practice yoga, that does not mean we are becoming Hindu.
[QUOTE=Pawel;36387] I solved this problem when I learned about interpretation of those “gods” as aspects of our psyche. That would mean that they are externalised part of our more uncounscious parts of psyche, with which we can develop relationship throught such practices. That sounds more ok with me.[/QUOTE]
I know that this is true of Buddhist tantra, but I don’t know about Hindu tantra. Buddhists clearly state that tantric deities are not externally existent entities, they are mental constructs. Based on Surya Deva’s statement that “they control all of reality”, I have to assume that Hindu tantra is different. The issue is not the quality of the translation, the issue is, are they or are they not considered to be externally existent entities?
[QUOTE=CkarmaKat;36348]In my personal opinion. No it isn’t.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for replying. I am also having the same opinion.
[QUOTE=Asuri;36426]And if we practice yoga, that does not mean we are becoming Hindu.[/QUOTE]
You are right Asuri, by merely practicing yoga one can not become Hindu. And that’s what I believe, we should not see yoga through the eyes of any religion.
[QUOTE=Asuri;36426]Here is one example of where the truth has fallen victim to your desire to promote your ideology. The difference between the darsanas and the Vedas is that the darsanas do not mention:
Surya
Savithri
Brahma
Rama
Rudra
Shiva
Sarabha
Vishnu
Pasupathi
Ganapati
Sita
Parvati
Devi
Lakshmi
Saraswathi
Narasimha
Narayana
Krishna
Govinda
Hayagreeva, or
Dathathreya,
which are some of the gods and goddesses that are mentioned in the Upanishads. There is a clear distinction between philosophy and religion, and that is that philosophy is not about the gods and the worship of the gods. That is the province of religion. So even though some of us may have an affinity for some of the Hindu philosophy, or hatha yoga, that does not mean we share the same affinity for the Hindu religion. And if we practice yoga, that does not mean we are becoming Hindu.[/QUOTE]
Namaste,
the language and time of the Vedas and the language and time the Darsanas is different. The darsanas are in classical Sanskrit and they use technical words and present ideas philosophically, in other words they are philosophical texts. On the other hand, the Vedas are in Vedic Sanskrit and they present the ideas poetically. Hence, why I make no claim the Vedas are a philosophical text, they are spiritual texts. They contain all the ideas of the darsanas in their poetic hymns. These are extracted, expanded, and developed into entire systems of philosophy by the darsanas.
In the traditional Vedic teaching system each of the Vedas were associated with a particular science, engineering(shilpa vidya) music(ghandara vidya), medicine(ayurveda), martial arts(dhunar vidya)
In the classical phase different words are used to describe old Vedic concepts. For instance the word “Rudra” is replaced by Shiva. Aditi becomes Shakti. Rita becomes dharma and karma. Maruts becomes the tanmatras and Agni, pritvhi, vayu, apas, akasha become the mahabhuttas. Indra become buddhi. Mitra-Varuna becomes Manas. Saraswati becomes Kundalini.
In other words all that changes is the names, rituals and symbols, but the concepts remain the same. The Vedic religion was never a religion that worshipped “gods and goddesses” The Vedic religion has always been a religion of spirituality. Even the Vedas say themselves, “They call you Mitra, Indra, Varuna, Aryaman, but the wise one knows there is only ONE, but called by many names”
I guess only somebody who is well versed in both the Vedas and the darsanas can appreciate this. An outsider looking in, sees difference where there is none.
You say that I am reading the OT selectively, and then you present me two particular sections of the OT. I am sorry but the OT is full of violence, I have quoted passage after passage from the OT which is full of violence. Nothing has been taken out of context at all. It is full of accounts of god killing people.
There is no requirement of belonging to any particular religion. This is the true teaching of the Christian faith, based on the words of the man himself. Yet you choose to ignore this because you don’t want to let go of your ideology. This is why most of the time, I refuse to engage in any discussion with you. Even when we prove our points, you refuse to acknowledge it, so trying to reason with you just a waste of time. You do not engage in rational discussion, you engage in verbal combat, and it is win at all costs.
Yes there is. “I am the way, the life and the truth, there is no way to heaven except me” arrogantly proclaimed by Jesus. Jesus appoints himself as the doorkeeper to god, deciding who gets in. He even threatens, “I will deny you before my father” to those who denied Jesus. He is very much like a man-child who is calling on his father when he is undermined by others, “I am going to tell daddy” This attitude is then adoped by the Christian church who become the doorkeepers and the ultimate arbiters of who is saved and not saved.
Also, you should not view the teachings of the fundamentalist Christian groups that you are familiar with as representative of all of Christianity. There are many Christian denominations. Some of these fundamentalist groups make even us uncomfortable. And I agree that if they are going to do things like destroy images of Hindu gods, they should be prepared for some Hindus to get angry.
These are official clergy members of the Church with ties to the highest Christian authorities. So yes they are representative. If you think their activities are fundamentalist, then the Church in general then is fundamentalist.
[QUOTE=namasteyoga;36435]You are right Asuri, by merely practicing yoga one can not become Hindu. And that’s what I believe, we should not see yoga through the eyes of any religion.[/QUOTE]
Yoga can only be seen with the eyes of Hinduism. As it is a Hindu practice. Other religions have nothing to do with Yoga, so of course we cannot see Yoga through the eyes of other religions.
Hinduism is the religion of Yoga.
Now here are two reasons why anybody who does Yoga is becoming Hindu
Anybody practicing Yoga who does not claim to be Hindu, is in fact a closet Hindu. They are afraid to come out and openly declare it.
This is an interesting debate. I acknowledge that the foundation of Yoga is originally Hindu, which is in fact not a religion but a science. In that case, Yoga becomes an applied science of spirituality.
However, I think practicing Yoga does not intrinsically make me Hindu in terms of culture. I was not born Hindu, and I even find some of its aspects alien to my interest. Though I must agree that Yoga should be practiced in its authentic context, not in the manner of afternoon tea party, where a group of people gather and do Yoga and plates.