“The correct term for the common Western idea of religion, which is a particular belief, in Hindu thought would not be Dharma but “mata” meaning a belief, view or opinion.” David Frawley
Thanks.
“This new Kshatriya must be willing to spread Hindu Dharma in a dynamic way along the lines of the old Vedic impulse, krinvanto vishwam aryam, make all the world noble.”
“Clearly without an intellectual Kshatriya Hindus will not likely be part of this churning out of a new world order.”
“It is time for that Kshatriya to arise again. The extent that it does will be the measure of the future of India and perhaps of any Dharmic revival in this adharmic world. Let us hope that this call is heeded! Who is there to answer it? Let them stand forth.”
More religious fanatacism.
Heil Mr. Frawley.
Don’t let one incident, however ignorant and hurtful , cause you to generalize and condemn an entire group. Karma is not karma if it is in anyone elses control- I mispoke about please help me with my karma but I was really saying , please quit egging me on so I won’t think negatively of you-It would’ve been nicer for everyone if your neighbors had done that. This is a smaller version of the condemnation of the fire dance in practical terms yet condemning many more people abstractly. You don’t need to defend Hinduism by attacking others. You defend Hinduism by being a good Hindu
[QUOTE=TonyTamer;60494]Don’t let one incident, however ignorant and hurtful , cause you to generalize and condemn an entire group. Karma is not karma if it is in anyone elses control- I mispoke about please help me with my karma but I was really saying , please quit egging me on so I won’t think negatively of you-It would’ve been nicer for everyone if your neighbors had done that. This is a smaller version of the condemnation of the fire dance in practical terms yet condemning many more people abstractly. You don’t need to defend Hinduism by attacking others. You defend Hinduism by being a good Hindu[/QUOTE]
I do not understand, you want us to allow misinformation about yoga to continue so that you can feel more peaceful inside?
I want you to say the truth as you know it and feel compelled by dharma to do without rancor, without petty sarcasm, fully respecting yourself and ahimsa. I do not mind the debate, I mind the use of this site to give yoga a bad name. You say you want to uphold the dignity of yoga and Hinduism- example teaches more than words. I do want to feel more peaceful inside- not at the expense of Truth but by removing the ego wars. Om, Peace, Peace , Peace- Bhagavad Gita
The soft universalisation many here are advocating is a pipe dream. The mild Christianity many here are claiming to uphold is also something of a rarity, at least as far as mine and many other Indians’ experience goes.
I hope the peaceniks here will realise some day that dissolving into paramAtmA should not happen at the cost of fighting for just causes in the material world. Amir may like to think that he is a Buddha, but his continued attachment to this topic thread shows that he is as attached to causes as everyone else is. Tony may seem to prefer an end to hostility, but he also seems to apply his theories arbitrarily. He says Hindus should not be assertive about their culture, but will he say the same about everyone who is being assertive about any cause? What seems to escape these people’s notice is that they do not live in a just world full of peace-loving folks.
Perhaps they need to pay a little more attention to the reasons behind why many Hindus here find it important to be assertive about their cultural heritage. Without that background, it is really no wonder that we are seeing woolly-headed arguments such as “the truth can’t be spoken” (then what have you been speaking so far sir?) and that speaking of giving well-deserved credit to Indian civilisation for the gift of Yoga is “religious fanaticism”. Seriously! What are you people smoking?
It is indeed as Koenraad Elst said:
"Most Western scholars positively dislike Hinduism when it stands up to defend itself. They prefer museum Hinduism, or innocent Gandhian kind of Hinduism, and they readily buy the secularist story that an assertive Hinduism is not the “real Hinduism”.
[QUOTE=JenniLeigh;60493]“This new Kshatriya must be willing to spread Hindu Dharma in a dynamic way along the lines of the old Vedic impulse, krinvanto vishwam aryam, make all the world noble.”
“Clearly without an intellectual Kshatriya Hindus will not likely be part of this churning out of a new world order.”
“It is time for that Kshatriya to arise again. The extent that it does will be the measure of the future of India and perhaps of any Dharmic revival in this adharmic world. Let us hope that this call is heeded! Who is there to answer it? Let them stand forth.”
More religious fanatacism.
Heil Mr. Frawley.[/QUOTE]
How is this religious fanaticism? Please explain.
vimoh,
“Amir may like to think that he is a Buddha, but his continued attachment to this topic thread shows that he is as attached to causes as everyone else is.”
I am speaking of the subject, but that does not mean that I have any attachment to it whatsoever. That is not the critereon for one’s freedom, whether one is speaking or not speaking, doing or not doing. I am speaking not because I am attached to any particular outcome, it is just an expression of my own compassion and joy of sharing. There is no purpose at all, and anything which can be reduced to a purpose is certain to be just a means to nourish one’s own ego.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60511]vimoh,
“Amir may like to think that he is a Buddha, but his continued attachment to this topic thread shows that he is as attached to causes as everyone else is.”
I am speaking of the subject, but that does not mean that I have any attachment to it whatsoever. That is not the critereon for one’s freedom, whether one is speaking or not speaking, doing or not doing. I am speaking not because I am attached to any particular outcome, it is just an expression of my own compassion and joy of sharing. There is no purpose at all, and anything which can be reduced to a purpose is certain to be just a means to nourish one’s own ego.[/QUOTE]
So when you say what you say, you do not want to convince the other person of your view? You are detached, I will accept your claim. But you are also arbitrary as far as your application of criteria go. You saying your thing is detached and “an expression of your compassion” but your opponent’s is not?
Sarva,
“This is also called vyavaharika satya or the “reality” of the phenomenal world”
And as you are speaking about something of which you have absolutely no idea, your words about it are completely empty. Unless one has come to a direct perception - then one should simply shut up.
“Knowledge of the transcendent brahman, never negates our knowledge of vyavaharika satya”
It seems not even a word can come out of your mouth which is not of the borrowed knowledge that is like a vast graveyard in one’s mind. These words are not out of one’s own voice, but other people’s voices have been wandering around in your mind. “Brahman” is just an assumption. You have accepted it on the basis of a belief system, or simply because your traditions have told you. Because you are too afraid to enter into the unknown - without any of these toys to protect oneself with, one needs to cling to a tradition as a support for one’s ego.
As long as you have not experienced it - it remains just an idea. One should investigate and find out whether there is such a thing, or whether it is simply the projections of those who were chasing figments of their own imagination. In fact, that word is meaningless - it will mean whatever you want it to mean. As long as you remain entangled in the relative concepts and ideas of the mind- Truth remains sealed from your understanding.
“People are using the same type of logic here when denying that yoga comes from Hinduism and denying that the practices are deeply connected with its religious roots”
First, the word “yoga” itself simply means “Union”. It is not a technique or a method, but a state of consciousness. And a state of consciousness is not Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or anything else - it is simply a state of existence itself. Any method which assists one towards realizing this space, is a method towards yoga. And if you knew anything about the methods for the expansion of consciousness which have been spoken of in the yogic sciences, you would know that they have their roots not in authority, not in scriptures, not in tradition, not in organizations, not with the scholarly knowledge of the priesthood, but in direct experience itself. That you have failed to realize this and have mistaken tradition as being the roots of yoga - as though somehow by some miracle something can arise out of nothing, has prevented you from understanding the matter. You are far too blinded by your knowledge and attachment to Hinduism, that you are far more interested in strengthening your beliefs rather than seeing into the heart of the reality. The first yogis were their own masters, not following any tradition. Because nobody was there before them - their investigation was completely alone in the alone, a scientific approach.
The methods of yoga are a scientific approach. And part of a scientific approach is experimentation. You will have to experiment, just like the yogis who came to their discoveries were just experimenting. Unless you believe in that nonsense that the Vedas is a revelation from God, then there is no point in inquiring further. To experiment does not need any belief, it simply requires a knowledge of the method. That is what the methods towards yoga are, experiments to discover your own being. And experiments are such - that they can be verified by anybody who is willing to become involved in the same experiments. Even if the kinds of experiments are different - one will come to the same discoveries. That is why much of modern science had already been discovered in the East centuries ago. And what modern science has discovered - as far as the interconnectedness of things, that everything in existence is of one energy manifesting itself in different ways, that time and space are relative, and countless other discoveries - is not “Hindu”. Truth is not Hindu, truth is truth. If Hindus happened to speak about it- that does not mean that truth is their property. But if you are a Hindu who wants to feel self-righteous, that somehow being a Hindu makes your life anymore meaningful than the life of a fly, that you want to be superior to others knowingly or unknowingly, then you will just use your identification to intoxicate yourself with delusions that only strengthen your ego. And this strenghtening of the ego is one of the greatest hindrances for enlightenment. This too was stated by Hindus, but the situation is simply scientific, it is not a Hindu situation. That is the nature of a mind which is identified with the ego. The same is the case with the “vasanas”, “samskaras” - the Hindus speaking of the conscious mind, the subconscious, the unconscious, the siddhis of the mind, various states of meditation, various states of samadhi - none of these things are Hindu, they have to do with the workings of man’s very being. Even if you are living on another planet and know nothing about Yoga - your mind still has vasanas, and karma still exists in the universe.
If still you fail to understand what is being indicated - then there is almost no hope for you to see into this understanding in this lifetime.
vimoh,
“So when you say what you say, you do not want to convince the other person of your view?”
No, because convincing others will not help. Even if you agree with me - I will make an effort to shatter your agreements. The same is the case if you disagree. Because agreeing or disagreeing will not bring you a step closer to truth. One will have to investigate and experiment.
“You saying your thing is detached and “an expression of your compassion” but your opponent’s is not?”
I was unaware that I had an opponent. If you want to know whether it is out of their own compassion, you should ask them. From what I have seen - it cannot be out of compassion as long as one is only interested in affirming one’s own ideas, beliefs, and conclusions. This means that one is more interested in security rather than Truth. It is my own understanding that more than ninety percent of humanity lives in this way, man is far more interested in comfort and consolation rather than seeing into the Truth. Because with consolation - man can continue preserving the dream that he has created in his own mind. He can continue believing all kinds of things about himself, about the universe, about life, which are just intended to give his ego a sense of support in life. It is a kind of insurance. In case anything goes wrong - these beliefs are there to keep him safe and sound. This is how the average person lives, his interests in life are far more about what assists him in his survival rather than his freedom.
Amir:
That the path of Yoga can be realised only through direct experiment is not the point being debated here. What is being debated here is its linkage with the Hindu way of life as it has existed in India since ages. That is what people here have been trying to say.
You say you have no opponents. But you address people with phrases like “[I]And as you are speaking about something of which you have absolutely no idea, your words about it are completely empty. Unless one has come to a direct perception - then one should simply shut up.[/I]”
How about if we apply the same to you? Have you done enough historical research to be able to affirm or deny the various Hindu/Vedic linkages with Yoga? If yes, then what are they? If no, then will you also shut up?
It seems to me that you have a world-denying view of Yoga and are keen to apply it to the historical view of Yoga. Will you apply the same to all history? Will you say that since the steam engine is pretty much universal now, it is foolish to call it a western invention? Will you say that since anyone anywhere could have the steam engine idea, the scientists who created it and perfected it are chauvinists for claiming it as theirs?
Your distinctions are arbitrary and your conclusions are anything but enlightened. It is a pity that you pretend that your views are free from attachment.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60515]It seems not even a word can come out of your mouth which is not of the borrowed knowledge that is like a vast graveyard in one’s mind. These words are not out of one’s own voice, but other people’s voices have been wandering around in your mind. “Brahman” is just an assumption. You have accepted it on the basis of a belief system, or simply because your traditions have told you. Because you are too afraid to enter into the unknown - without any of these toys to protect oneself with, one needs to cling to a tradition as a support for one’s ego.[/QUOTE]
You attack Sarva’s point by putting yourself on a high pedestal here. Sarva is merely making a case for the historical roots of Yoga. You make it a debate about experience (which you may or may not have and is therefore unverifiable) and dismiss all written accounts as being of no significance. These records, by the way, are verifiable. But you won’t go there since it is too much work, no?
As I said, arbitrary distinctions. Your entire line of reasoning boils down to, “I am superior spiritually. I am awesome. I can’t be bothered with books and reading. You are stupid for insisting on history.”
And all this, you say, while continuing to pretend that you are not attached to this debate. Pursuit of the spiritual shouldn’t be had at the cost of one’s worldly dharma. If that had been the case, people would not be expected to marry, and live lives as citizens of their countries. Worldly life comes with its own burdens. India’s classical history is full of accounts of people who let go of their lives to go meditate in the forest. Not because they had delusions of Buddha-hood, but because they did not have the balls to carry out their worldly dharma.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60515]Sarva,
“This is also called vyavaharika satya or the “reality” of the phenomenal world”
And as you are speaking about something of which you have absolutely no idea, your words about it are completely empty. Unless one has come to a direct perception - then one should simply shut up.
It seems not even a word can come out of your mouth which is not of the borrowed knowledge that is like a vast graveyard in one’s mind. These words are not out of one’s own voice, but other people’s voices have been wandering around in your mind[/QUOTE]Here again we see Amir’s meglomaniac tendecies comming above. He has claimed earlier that he has percieved the truth, now he is telling others to shut up if they haven’t. Amir, you cannot win a debate on the premise that you have experienced truth directly. Anyone can say that and it doesn’t negate the historical facts presented.
The methods of yoga are a scientific approach. And part of a scientific approach is experimentation. You will have to experiment, just like the yogis who came to their discoveries were just experimenting. Unless you believe in that nonsense that the Vedas is a revelation from God, then there is no point in inquiring further.
If you are going to claim that yoga is a science, please back it up with academic research to verify this. You can’t, because the subject matter of yoga is beyond science and in the domain of Sanatana Dharma.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;60525]Amir, you cannot win a debate on the premise that you have experienced truth directly. I, and anyone else here, can claim exactly the same thing.[/QUOTE]
Exactly!
If you have knowledge of historical facts, then use it to make your case. Otherwise shut up and let those who know say what they have to say.
Your line of reasoning right now is utterly illogical.
To this, you might say that logic, knowledge are all worldly matters and you don’t care about them much since you are beyond them and truth can only be experienced.
If that is the case then what are you doing in a worldly discussion? You have your experience and I have mine. You will admit that they can’t be transmitted. So using them in an intellectual argument is useless.
you spoke your truth. I never meant not to express yourself. My expression here has been because of the assertions here that those who follow Abrahamic religious tradition are necessarily deluded and lost. I do not say anything against Hinduism and do believe yoga is reflected by it. I also believe that yoga can be applied by anyone ascribing any culture. All Abrahamic religions have avenues for the focus of Love to reign. Love is all you need. A few here speak based on a hate ; I am asserting against that. That’s my religion. No one here has anything but admiration for the religion of hinduism. You are defending by attacking and neither is worthwhile. Most likely neither are things written to open your mind and heart to life giving peace. You wrote well though. Namaste
Tonytamer,
You did not debunk any of our arguments. The argument we gave Christianity is an intolerant religion you rebuted by saying your a good Christian, your mum is a good Christian and Father Peter is a good Christian. But we were not saying that Christianity did not have good people who were Christians - we were saying the religion is intolerant. I myself said I have have many good friends who are Christian and I also recognised some rare sects of Christian today which are tolerant. You are not going to get any argument from me that there are good people in Christianity. I agree with that myself. There is no doubt on the matter as far as I concerned.
But when we talk about the Christian religion itself we are not talking about people but doctrines. It is a fact that Christian doctrine preaches intolerance:
I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mark 10:15)
“Then Jesus told them, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)
“I [Jesus] am the way and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
“Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16) {1}
"The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household.” (Acts 16:29-31)
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (Ro 1:18-23)
God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism." (Ro 2:6-10)
“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” (Ro 2:13)
“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” (Ro 3:22)
Classical Views
For most of its history, Christianity has been an “exclusive” religion. That is, it has taught that salvation is available only to Christians. Thus, from the very beginning, Christians attached great importance to spreading the news about Christianity through missionary and evangelistic efforts, believing that people were lost without it.In the earliest centuries of the church, the Christian requirements for salvation were very simple. The message was as simple as that given to the prison guards in Acts: Repent and believe in Christ. But as different beliefs about Christ began to emerge, the church began to attempt to determine what was necessary to believe about Christ - that he was raised from the dead on the third day? That he was the Son of God? That he was God incarnate? As correct beliefs were determined, and codified by ecumenical councils of bishops, some of those who considered themselves Christians were regarded by the mainstream church as effectively in the category of “other religions.” (Arius, Pelagius, etc.)
In the 14 centuries between the writing of the New Testament and the Protestant Reformation, Christian doctrine was based on a combination of the Scriptures, creeds, certain councils, the writings of respected church fathers, and the teachings of church leaders. The nearly unanimous consensus of these authorities was that salvation is found exclusively not just through belief in Christ, but through membership in the Church. Thus, it has taught that salvation is available only to members of the Christian community who adhere to the official doctrine of the Bible, the creeds and the councils, and participate in the sacraments. Thus those who considered themselves Christians but were excommunicated from the Church and her sacraments (such as Arius and Pelagius) were believed to be excluded from salvation as well.
The “no salvation outside the church” view was primarily based on the concept, developed by theologians over the centuries, that divine grace is conveyed through the sacraments.
With the Protestant Reformation, many Christians began to believe that salvation is possible - and perhaps even more probable - outside the fold of the Catholic Church. However, it was still generally held that one must be a Christian, and adhere to certain core beliefs, to have hope of heaven.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/other_religions.htm
The Christian intolerance is so extreme that even a website like religioustolerance.com has to expose it:
Of the many thousands of essays on this web site, we regard those in this section to be among the most important.
Almost everywhere else in our essays dealing with Christianity, we compare conservative and liberal Christian points of view. This essay is different. Here, we compare various events in the Bible with current secular and religious standards of morality. This section lists many events in the Bible that are immoral by today’s secular standards, including: genocide, murder of people for their religious beliefs, mass murder of innocent children, etc. They are sometimes called “hard passages” because they seem to portray God as behaving in a way that would be considered highly immoral by most people today.
The purpose and intent of this section is to show there are some profoundly violent, immoral and unethical passages in the Bible when it is compared to today’s secular and religious ethical systems. These passages are casting Christianity and Judaism a bad light. They are causing many potential Christians and Jews to reject the Bible, and may be contributing to the legitimization of violence throughout the culture.
Religious intolerance among conservative Christians:
A few conservative Christians have made statements that categorize other religious groups as evil, degenerate, sub-human and/or hated by God. Some examples are:
A former Southern Baptist president told two large meetings recently that God does not listen to the prayers of a Jew.
A Baptist minister in Texas has allegedly called for the mass murder of Wiccans by napalm.
An Evangelical minister explained that there are two groups in the world: the children of God (those who are saved), and the children of the devil (everyone else).
Another stated that New Age beliefs are another attempt by Satan to pollute Christianity, promote immorality and foster unethical attitudes.
Still another stated that non-Christians hate God, love sin, and don’t care whether anyone is struggling with sin or not.
A prominent televangelist called for the round up and extermination of all Wiccans by the U.S. Federal government.
Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions have frequently been described as variations of Satanism.
It is thus blatantly obvious that Christianity preaches intolerance. According to Christian doctrines I am a heathen satanic worshipper who is condemned to hell and eternal damnation. I am a despicable creature who is hated by god. This doctrine that Christianity teaches has manifestd in history as crusades, colonialism, witch-trials and slavery.
Why are you defending something so morally backwards and reprehensible?
The strength of assertions are reflected in the forum choosed to express them. It is easier to be a Saint surrounded by angels than to maintain holiness in Hell.
Tony you are giving us nothing but rhetoric now.
Why don’t you just admit it Christianity is a primitive and morally backwards religion? How can you deny the blatant fact that Christianity preaches intolerance for all other religions has historically butchered them in cold blood?
I am glad to hear that about the possibility of good Christians. Some curious quotations there, esp. the lead off which could be spoken by any enlightened being. You also get no argument from me that religious institutions can be intolerant. All I believe Jesus said was Love and his example was one of inclusion. Blessed are the peacemakers… I also can’t believe , albeit based on little knowledge, that the Hindu religion as an institution has no intolerance- how about Hindu women ? I have seen some Indian made movies that depict a sad plight politically even today. Any institution is liable to intolerance by it’s nature.