• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat! Really????

Status
Not open for further replies.
renuka

renuka

Well-known member
I was just thinking a few days ago after reading some parts of the Srimad Bhagavatam where Lord Buddha is described as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu to solely delude unrighteous men away from the Vedic Religion.

He is painted like how Mohini deluded the Asuras from the nectar and the conclusion is a true Vaidik should not follow the teachings of Lord Buddha cos that is only meant to delude the so called "evil" men.

Now at present day we have a Shankaracharya who passed a fatwa against the worship of Shiridi Sai Baba that His worship is a ploy to divide Hindus and some temples in Gujarat also removed the idol of Shiridi Baba based on the fatwa of the Shankaracharya.

It seems to me whenever there was a personality that made religion user friendly with the intellect as the basis for all understanding some Authority in the Hindu Religion would shoot down the teachings of such a personality and render it the untruth or not Vedic etc.

There seems to be an acute fear in some quarters of the Hindu society that stimulating the intellect is the biggest enemy of religion.

When the masses are given access to religion without anyone to be in between them and God..there is panic and then all sorts of Neo Bhakti movements arise that work on the fear and sentiments of the common men to make them individuals that leave their brains behind.

Any form of rational thinking and analysis is seen as work of Ego and Ignorance.
Every query is shot down and only blind faith is advocated.

Commentaries on Geeta even go to the extent of distorting even what Lord Krishna said.

Karmenyevadhikaraste Ma Phalesu Kadacana has been interpreted by an revered Acharaya that one is only entitled to performing his actions(Karma) but not entitled to Jnana(fruits here has been distorted as Jnana).

Why?

There seems to be an acute need to safe guard Jnana and make the mass population a bunch of crash test dummies with no mind of their own.

For all the talk about Dhiyo Yoh Nah Prachodayat(Illuminate our intellect)..it seems that the hidden agenda of religious activist is just to cloud the intellect.

So Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat! Really???
 
Last edited:
Dear Doctor,

Good thinking.
This Sankaracharya is Peetathipathi of two Mutts,Joshi Mutt and Dwarka Mutt. A Learnered person, but his knowledge seems to have curtailed his vision. I feel sorry for this holy-man, It is said, liberation is hampered by knowledge some times, it is a bandha - a bondage, it puts a cork over further thinking. How true it is.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
Sanatana dharma can accommodate another doctoral bhashyas for the three principal scriptures. Difficulty is in finding followers for the new matham. Good luck!
 
Those who profess to save Hinduism are the true enemies of the religion. I read this article.
http://truthabouthinduism.wordpress....on-in-vedas-2/
The Muslim in this is better informed about Vedas than the other man. It confirms my theory that the most eloquent defender of vedas are the most ignorant.

To keep their authority over the masses intact, the religious heads never encourage original thinking. This is true of all religions. In spite of the catholicity of the Vedas, what is spread as Hindutva is bigotry.
 
renuka said:
I was just thinking a few days ago after reading some parts of the Srimad Bhagavatam where Lord Buddha is described as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu to solely delude unrighteous men away from the Vedic Religion.


Buddha was a non-believer and he was against vedic religion. How come God Vishnu (some historians say he was a king) takes the form of a non-believer.

It clearly shows that Bhagavadham was written after Buddha and the writer had no knowledge about Buddha's preaching.

One day we may come across that the Vishnu dasars may say 'Mahaveera' was the incarnation of Vishnu. Still people will believe it.
Click to expand...
 
CHANDRU1849 said:
renuka said:
I was just thinking a few days ago after reading some parts of the Srimad Bhagavatam where Lord Buddha is described as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu to solely delude unrighteous men away from the Vedic Religion.


Buddha was a non-believer and he was against vedic religion. How come God Vishnu (some historians say he was a king) takes the form of a non-believer.

It clearly shows that Bhagavadham was written after Buddha and the writer had no knowledge about Buddha's preaching.

One day we may come across that the Vishnu dasars may say 'Mahaveera' was the incarnation of Vishnu. Still people will believe it.
Click to expand...

Looks like there were 2 Buddhas!

Were There Two Buddhas?

1. The first Avatara Buddha established the philosophy of Ahimsa, nonviolence, and convinced those followers of Vedic customs who had become bent toward animal sacrifice to give up such rituals and simply follow him, and become kind to animals. Being an avatara of Vishnu, He did not establish any godless or monist philosophy.


2. The Avatara Buddha was also born of his mother Anjana in what became known as Bodhgaya.


3. The second Buddha known as Gautama, Siddhartha, or Shakyamuni – sage of the Shakyas – was born in Lumbini, now in Nepal, with Mayadevi as his mother. He is the one we often hear about, the prince who left home to do austerities to find enlightenment. He went to Bodhgaya to meditate because of its spiritual potency as the birthplace of the avatara Buddha. Then he became enlightened to the reasons for suffering in this world, and developed a godless way of becoming free from suffering. From that point he established the monist and godless philosophy of Buddhism, which became named after him.


Of course, the Theravadin texts refer to six preceding Buddhas (those who have awakened) as Vipasyin, Sikin, Krakuccanda, Konagamara, and Kashyapa, and Maitreya as the Buddha of the future. But we are not talking of any of these.


4. The reason why these two Buddhas became merged into one identity was partly because Adi Sankaracharya, in discussions with others, related them as one person and did not discriminate between the purpose of one or the other. Sankaracharya developed his own sunya philosophy, which was very much like the Buddhist philosophy, replacing the Buddhist nirvana with his Vedic Brahman, to defeat Buddhism and drive it out of India. He succeeded most effectively. At that time many were leaving Vedic culture altogether and converting to Buddhism. But with this new Mayavadha philosophy from Sankaracharya, Buddhism bowed and the conversions stopped, and Buddhism itself started to decline.
Click to expand...
 
vgane said:
CHANDRU1849 said:
Looks like there were 2 Buddhas!

Were There Two Buddhas?

1. The first Avatara Buddha established the philosophy of Ahimsa, nonviolence, and convinced those followers of Vedic customs who had become bent toward animal sacrifice to give up such rituals and simply follow him, and become kind to animals. Being an avatara of Vishnu, He did not establish any godless or monist philosophy.


2. The Avatara Buddha was also born of his mother Anjana in what became known as Bodhgaya.


3. The second Buddha known as Gautama, Siddhartha, or Shakyamuni – sage of the Shakyas – was born in Lumbini, now in Nepal, with Mayadevi as his mother. He is the one we often hear about, the prince who left home to do austerities to find enlightenment. He went to Bodhgaya to meditate because of its spiritual potency as the birthplace of the avatara Buddha. Then he became enlightened to the reasons for suffering in this world, and developed a godless way of becoming free from suffering. From that point he established the monist and godless philosophy of Buddhism, which became named after him.


Of course, the Theravadin texts refer to six preceding Buddhas (those who have awakened) as Vipasyin, Sikin, Krakuccanda, Konagamara, and Kashyapa, and Maitreya as the Buddha of the future. But we are not talking of any of these.


4. The reason why these two Buddhas became merged into one identity was partly because Adi Sankaracharya, in discussions with others, related them as one person and did not discriminate between the purpose of one or the other. Sankaracharya developed his own sunya philosophy, which was very much like the Buddhist philosophy, replacing the Buddhist nirvana with his Vedic Brahman, to defeat Buddhism and drive it out of India. He succeeded most effectively. At that time many were leaving Vedic culture altogether and converting to Buddhism. But with this new Mayavadha philosophy from Sankaracharya, Buddhism bowed and the conversions stopped, and Buddhism itself started to decline.
Click to expand...

Sri vgane

Thanks for posting this reference - it was interesting to read the article by Stephen Knapp

I know Stephen means well but the characterization of Adi Sankara in point 4 above by Stephen lacks maturity in my view.

Adi Sankara did not develop his own Sunya philosophy - the writer is parroting what others have written without understanding.

Anyone that has actually gone to a class to learn from Sankara Bhashya will learn that not only Adi Sankara but thinkers of his time had the highest sense of integrity to truly understand reality from a doctrinal perspective. They were not wedded to own ego driven point of view or philosophy.

What Sankara Bhashya for a number of scriptures did was to provide phenomenal clarity. Unfortunately there are not many scholars that truly understand the Sanskrit grammar well to understand and interpret the teaching expounded in the Bhashya. Sri Sankara did not develop his own Sunya philosophy, he was simply explaining with clarity what is written in the Sruthi. In all the Bhashyas there is a Purva-Paksha discussion first with highest standards of integrity. One may be completely sold on other points of views such as those of Sunyavadis or others like Veisehsikas etc. Then he refutes them point by point and show how there cannot be any other way to understand reality. People those days were able to accept the description because like true scientists of today they were willing to understand the truth.

Budhism and its brand of Sunya has nothing to do with Nirguna Brahman - there is a universe of a difference.

My opinion of Stephen Knapp has fallen since his writing is superficial and his quotes of even Bhashya section is from reading other quotes by others. He has still done good service by unearthing some facts regardless.

The topic area dealt with requires years of preparation, qualified teacher(s) and right attitude of Shraddha.
Simply reading translations often leaves one confused. Stephen probably has some preparation, obviously very intelligent, has all the right attitude and probably may lack the right teacher.

Regardless his piece is illuminating in my mind except for one point.

Thanks for sharing the link
Click to expand...
 
Dear Renuka,

Though I am not against rational thinking per se , I do think when it is taken to its extreme it works against further progress of the mind. I am of the opinion that rational thinking is the first step in the ability to think, and is followed by the ability to perform deeper coherent thinking. We give so much importance to rational thinking because it helps in producing a coherent and non-contradicting understanding of facts. The major limitation though is, it works on facts that are consciously known.

A mind that see the big picture or that has the capability to think in a deep way, may not bring to the surface all that helped in the understanding of something but still produces a coherent and non-contradicting facts at a deeper level. Actually even though it is possible to bring everything to the surface by conscious effort, the information may not be verifiable or are dismissed because the thoughts may be well ahead of its time.

The seers probably understood this and also understood that an half baked product of mind such as rational thinking as indicated above may well be detrimental in understanding or even accepting deeper truths. So they were underplaying the role of intellect and reason because the vast majority of the population do not try to think about the world by themselves from a philosophical point of view but accept what revered people say.

To urge them to use rational thinking would be truly detrimental to the progress of their mind because by using rational thinking they would arrive at erroneous conclusions. So at least in the matters of religion and spirituality, the common man was discouraged to use his intellect for his spiritual progress. There was always a guru who was enlightened enough to pass on the teachings of the religion.

Yes, intellect was sought to be illuminated but not let it plunge into darkness and it would be the case of the latter if faith was not made the basis of illumination.
 
Last edited:
Renukaji,
your opening post for reference.
While learned people are discussing about the fallibility of Stephen Knapp and how one sunya is different from another, these thoughts came to my mind when I read your OP:

It seems to me whenever there was a personality that made religion user friendly with the intellect as the basis for all understanding some Authority in the Hindu Religion would shoot down the teachings of such a personality and render it the untruth or not Vedic etc.
Click to expand...

I differ. It is not when someone comes on the scene to address the intellect that there was resistance. When Sankara, Ramanuja or Madhva came on the scene and addressed the intellect part of the belief system they were not banned nor were they persecuted. Their ideas were not "shot down" as you prefer to say. It was all accepted as interpretations of vedic truth. Depending on the level of intellect people followed these acharyas and formed groups. There was mostly a healthy intellectual fight between these groups bordering on fanaticism.

But when there came on the scene people who had only the sharp intellect without the accompanying viveka, when they stood the belief system by its head, when they sort of hijacked the gullible sections of the society with their sidhdhies alone, there was resistance from the intellectuals and that was natural. Thus when someone comes and occupies a simple human mind by his tricks like materialising a small Vinayak idol from thin air, or when someone asks one of his bhaktas in the crowd whether his mother has been cured of the typhoid that she was suffering the idea is to create a fear, the fear of nakedness standing before that Godman because you can not have any privacy and you are totally open in his presence. The choice for the bhakta is a hobsons choice. He has to run away from that Godman and keep himself in tact or surrender totally to that man and join the bandwagon. In course of time many people convince themselves that the Godman is God himself. It is at this point that the bystanders who do not under stand either the Godman's sidhdhi nor the bhakta's adulation for him jump into the fray and it becomes a free fo all.

There seems to be an acute fear in some quarters of the Hindu society that stimulating the intellect is the biggest enemy of religion.
Click to expand...

Where is the stimulating intellect? It is a parrot like repetition of obvious truths. Only the sentences are different. The same alphabet soup and even the flavour remains the same. Godmen are mostly elephant egos with a large following. If someone calls the bluff it is not out of fear for the Vedas safety but out of a desire to question the untruth propagated cleverly mixed with truth.

When the masses are given access to religion without anyone to be in between them and God..there is panic and then all sorts of Neo Bhakti movements arise that work on the fear and sentiments of the common men to make them individuals that leave their brains behind
Click to expand...
.

Those who care among the masses know well that there is no one between him/her and the God. If there is such an impediment he creates his own God and dispenses with the go-between,-at least in the Hindu society. What is written by you shows your ignorance of the roots of bhakti movement. Bhakti movement was the evolutionary response of the masses who did not understand the intricacies of epistemology or metaphysics. When what is nirvikalpa pratyaksham was being discussed by intellectuals for days together, there came a Jayadeva who spoke in the language of love which was well known to the ordinary man. He said God is love and the common man cheered him and most importantly understood what was said. Only we did not have screaming banners reading "don't make war(philosophical): make love". LOL.

Any form of rational thinking and analysis is seen as work of Ego and Ignorance.
Every query is shot down and only blind faith is advocated.
Click to expand...

Rational thinking is like a sharp knife. You need viveka to accompany it so that you do not maim yourself with that and use it only to your advantage and benefit. A questioning mind is okay only as long as it questions and receives answers to analyse it and understand the truth. Endless questioning results in nihilism. My neighbour was a strange character. Once to start a friendly conversation with him I asked him "enna sir sowkyama?" His reply was "naan sowkyamana enna illainnna enna? ungalukku enna venum?" So he asked a perfectly rational question. But it was purposeless. Hope you understand the difference.

There seems to be an acute need to safeguard Jnana and make the mass population a bunch of crash test dummies with no mind of their own.
Click to expand...

It would be more appropriate to say that there is a need - an acute one- to safeguard true jnana from jihadists of a different variety in our faith.

For all the talk about Dhiyo Yoh Nah Prachodayat(Illuminate our intellect)..it seems that the hidden agenda of religious activist is just to cloud the intellect.
Click to expand...

Intellect by its very sharpness and nature is prone to inflicting injuries. A cutting board viveka is badly in need to avoid injury.

So Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat! Really???
Click to expand...
Now you know the answer. LOL.
 
sravna said:
Dear Renuka,

Though I am not against rational thinking per se , I do think when it is taken to its extreme it works against further progress of the mind. I am of the opinion that rational thinking is the first step in the ability to think, and is followed by the ability to perform deeper coherent thinking. We give so much importance to rational thinking because it helps in producing a coherent and non-contradicting understanding of facts. The major limitation though is, it works on facts that are consciously known.

A mind that see the big picture or that has the capability to think in a deep way, may not bring to the surface all that helped in the understanding of something but still produces a coherent and non-contradicting facts at a deeper level. Actually even though it is possible to bring everything to the surface by conscious effort, the information may not be verifiable or are dismissed because the thoughts may be well ahead of its time.

The seers probably understood this and also understood that an half baked product of mind such as rational thinking as indicated above may well be detrimental in understanding or even accepting deeper truths. So they were underplaying the role of intellect and reason because the vast majority of the population do not try to think about the world by themselves from a philosophical point of view but accept what revered people say.

To urge them to use rational thinking would be truly detrimental to the progress of their mind because by using rational thinking they would arrive at erroneous conclusions. So at least in the matters of religion and spirituality, the common man was discouraged to use his intellect for his spiritual progress. There was always a guru who was enlightened enough to pass on the teachings of the religion.

Yes, intellect was sought to be illuminated but not let it plunge into darkness and it would be the case of the latter if faith was not made the basis of illumination.
Click to expand...


Dear Sravna,

I printed out the article of Were there 2 Buddhas pasted by Vgane ji and was reading it.

It seems to be each Acharya had his own version of the story..each seem to only trying to out do the other..the Vaishnava's Vs Mayavadhins and Mayavadhins Vs Buddhist and so on and on.


So I wonder if any Guru is actually worth while cos he would have been heavily influenced by his preceptors to a major extent.

It seems that no one is actually interested in teaching the Truth but each wanting to stand out and project their school of thought as the Gospel Truth..so where does this leave the common man?

By trial and error..by faults and mistakes..even if it takes countless births to even get a grain of truth its worth it to be on your own cos I dont really feel any Acharya actually wants to educate the masses..they just want to propel themselves.


That is why personally I feel the best Guru is our own self.Its only ourselves finally that can pave the way for our own selves.

TEXT 5​
uddhared atmanatmanam
natmanam avasadayet
atmaiva hy atmano bandhur
atmaiva ripur atmanah


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]TRANSLATION​
​
bump.gif
A man must elevate himself by his own mind, not degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well.​
[/FONT]
​
 
Last edited:
Dear Renuka,

It is ok if there are different schools of thought and each preaches its own philosophy. I think there is a common thread that ties all of them which is importance to spirituality and I think that is very important. The ways may be different but the end each is supposed to lead you to, is the same.

My intention is to mainly bring out the contrast of acknowledging spirituality and the denial of it. You need to be spiritually inclined to understand spiritual truths and not just understand the physical world. With just the rational thinking, and ignoring spirituality will surely lead to the current state of affairs. It will definitely not lead to illumination of intellect. That is really what I wanted to say.
 
tks said:
vgane said:
Sri vgane

Thanks for posting this reference - it was interesting to read the article by Stephen Knapp

I know Stephen means well but the characterization of Adi Sankara in point 4 above by Stephen lacks maturity in my view.

Adi Sankara did not develop his own Sunya philosophy - the writer is parroting what others have written without understanding.

Anyone that has actually gone to a class to learn from Sankara Bhashya will learn that not only Adi Sankara but thinkers of his time had the highest sense of integrity to truly understand reality from a doctrinal perspective. They were not wedded to own ego driven point of view or philosophy.

What Sankara Bhashya for a number of scriptures did was to provide phenomenal clarity. Unfortunately there are not many scholars that truly understand the Sanskrit grammar well to understand and interpret the teaching expounded in the Bhashya. Sri Sankara did not develop his own Sunya philosophy, he was simply explaining with clarity what is written in the Sruthi. In all the Bhashyas there is a Purva-Paksha discussion first with highest standards of integrity. One may be completely sold on other points of views such as those of Sunyavadis or others like Veisehsikas etc. Then he refutes them point by point and show how there cannot be any other way to understand reality. People those days were able to accept the description because like true scientists of today they were willing to understand the truth.

Budhism and its brand of Sunya has nothing to do with Nirguna Brahman - there is a universe of a difference.

My opinion of Stephen Knapp has fallen since his writing is superficial and his quotes of even Bhashya section is from reading other quotes by others. He has still done good service by unearthing some facts regardless.

The topic area dealt with requires years of preparation, qualified teacher(s) and right attitude of Shraddha.
Simply reading translations often leaves one confused. Stephen probably has some preparation, obviously very intelligent, has all the right attitude and probably may lack the right teacher.

Regardless his piece is illuminating in my mind except for one point.

Thanks for sharing the link
Click to expand...

Dear Sri TKS,

In case you would like to get more info on Stephen Knapp please refer to following site:

Stephen Knapp and his books on Spiritual Enlightenment and Vedic Culture

He has written lot of books on the Vedic tradition..The above site also details the various books penned by the author!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
vikrama said:
Those who profess to save Hinduism are the true enemies of the religion. I read this article.
http://truthabouthinduism.wordpress....on-in-vedas-2/
The Muslim in this is better informed about Vedas than the other man. It confirms my theory that the most eloquent defender of vedas are the most ignorant.

To keep their authority over the masses intact, the religious heads never encourage original thinking. This is true of all religions. In spite of the catholicity of the Vedas, what is spread as Hindutva is bigotry.
Click to expand...

Sri Vikrama



One has to defend common sense (Samanya) Dharama and stop spread of aggressive religions that use unfair means.

Also if India gets converted largely to one of the two aggressive religions there will never be peace.

The so called defenders of 'Hinduism' were never formally educated in the study of the Vedas. The non Hindus have an agenda and have done enough research to poke holes to which those playing the defense role are actually clueless. The defenders seem to be doing is to defend their self esteem of a religion (Hinduism) that they are born into.

Hinduism or whatever it was called centuries ago lost its 'learning class' of people long ago. Today most people are way too busy in their chosen profession that there is very little time to study the scriptures. Also there are very few *qualified* teachers. So it is not surprising that the so called defenders are actually not always knowledgeable.

I do not know which Hindu leader of what sect is trying to keep others from thinking.

If I compare to say Catholics the Pope and the priests continue and hide large numbers of pedophiles acting as priests. Even the new Pope has only now coming around to even acknowledging the problem. If I look at the Islamic leaders they look the other way and do not condemn acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. Compared to these people the so called religious leaders are benign in Hindu society. If someone does not encourage thinking and asking questions there is no reason to listen to them.
 
Dear Sri TKS,
I agree with you in general. The ordinary people when confronted with difficult questions on religion by critics are unable to respond properly and lose the argument.
When we profess that vedas are the basis of Hinduism, it is necessary to arm every Hindu with the basic tenets of Vedas lest they be converted by unscrupulous proselytizers. But Vedas are beyond the reach of the common man.

It is not difficult to produce pamphlets on the greatness of Hinduism containing the answers to the critics. I do not find much has been done in this regard.

The other religionists misrepresent our scriptures and cause confusion in the minds of the religiously illiterate. I frequently come upon pamphlets misquoting Bhagavad Gita which say things favourable to them. Once the son of my christian neighbour came to me with a booklet containing such misinformation. Luckily, I had the Bhagavadgita book handy. I showed him the relevant chapter and verse and pointed out the blunder of the booklet. He saw through the mischief of his own people. He was convinced and now he has great regard for the BG.
We should have, as it were, a sort of pamphlet-war to counteract and our madadhipatis are slow to realise this.
 
vikrama said:
Dear Sri TKS,
I agree with you in general. The ordinary people when confronted with difficult questions on religion by critics are unable to respond properly and lose the argument.
When we profess that vedas are the basis of Hinduism, it is necessary to arm every Hindu with the basic tenets of Vedas lest they be converted by unscrupulous proselytizers. But Vedas are beyond the reach of the common man.

It is not difficult to produce pamphlets on the greatness of Hinduism containing the answers to the critics. I do not find much has been done in this regard.

The other religionists misrepresent our scriptures and cause confusion in the minds of the religiously illiterate. I frequently come upon pamphlets misquoting Bhagavad Gita which say things favourable to them. Once the son of my christian neighbour came to me with a booklet containing such misinformation. Luckily, I had the Bhagavadgita book handy. I showed him the relevant chapter and verse and pointed out the blunder of the booklet. He saw through the mischief of his own people. He was convinced and now he has great regard for the BG.
We should have, as it were, a sort of pamphlet-war to counteract and our madadhipatis are slow to realise this.
Click to expand...

Dear Sri Vikrama,

Your point is very valid..We do not counteract the negative points ..

We should first prepare a fertile ground by sharing the positive aspects of the religion..This is to be followed by countering the mischief mongers as when required without any delay..

I think organizations such as VHP, HM can play a proactive role in this!

Keeping ourselves aloof and unruffled will not help!

Also showing sign of being defenseless and debilitated, when we can reach to the above mentioned organizations for help & guidance!
 
vgane said:
Dear Sri Vikrama,

Your point is very valid..We do not counteract the negative points ..

We should first prepare a fertile ground by sharing the positive aspects of the religion..This is to be followed by countering the mischief mongers as when required without any delay..

I think organizations such as VHP, HM can play a proactive role in this!

Keeping ourselves aloof and unruffled will not help!

Also showing sign of being defenseless and debilitated, when we can reach to the above mentioned organizations for help & guidance!
Click to expand...


Dear Sir,

I recently had the opportunity to debate with a person of a different religion who said that he found the Karma theory flawed and we had an interesting debate which finally he bowed out from cos he did not want to answer some of my questions and he concluded that I have an atheistic view since I was discussing on technical points and he still wanted to subscribe to the idea of a God somewhere up in heaven that decides everything.

But all I can say from that debate that it actually opened my eyes on how much a Non Hindu has done extensive study of Hindu material just to look for loop holes to "attack".

I am not finding fault with us Hindus but to a certain extent we are not prepared to face these types of people cos the Hindu had no intention to convert anyone so no need to find fault with any other religion but at the same time that does not mean we cant stimulate our own intellect to know more and how to explain when asked any question.

The main stay of attacking by a Non Hindu is the Puranas..cos imagination in Puranas tend to run wild and at times even degrade our own Divinties ..for example Lord Krishna is painted in our Puranas as a play boyish characters with 16,008 wives and surprisingly even ISCKON is supportive of this slander!

I remember reading a book written by Paramahansa Yogananda where He mentioned if there was chance he would take a life just to clear the name of Lord Krishna from all these stories.

So partly we Hindus are also to blame..no one wants to edit and censor the Puranas..everyone says "O' its symbolic..you are not ready to understand it..your are clouded by ignorance..you do not have the Gunas to imbibe the Jnaana etc"

Its all just excuses giving others the opportunity to find loop holes in the religion.Those who are secure in Hinduism are too obsessed with themselves that the common man is left out and not educated in religion.

There are preachers of Non Hindu religions that go around saying that "How can there be an Avatar? If the Hindu concept of God is Brahman..that is beyond everything..Formless..Unborn..unchanging..no beginning ..no end..then how can you say that God descends as an Avatar? Cos an Avatar is seen..an Avatar has a form..an Avatar has parents..an Avatar has birth and death..so how can He be God when god is not supposed to have all these criteria?"

So the Non Hindu is debating only about Nirguna Brahman and refused to acknowledge Saguna Brahman just to shoot down the Avatar theory...so to the innocent mind who is not aware of Saguna and Nirguna concept he succumbs to such preaching and converts.

Many Non Hindus also ask "how come you are praying to a God who chased after wife of others(Gopikas)?"

Thanks to our Puranas and the hyperactive imagination of the writers..some Hindus would be wondering what to answer.

We cant just run away from all these facts and have to learn how to counteract these questions when asked.

But if we keep wanting not to think and just follow without questioning or even dare make change to edit the Puranas..we should not complain if any Hindu converts.
 
Last edited:
Critical editions of itihasas and puranas are published by oriental research institutes. These are edited in the sense, existing different versions are compared to correct manuscript copying mistakes. Does not mean that portions one finds inconvenient or doesn't like are deleted. If one doesn't like some passages he is free to skip, but this kolaveri to black out is not done or acceptable.
renuka said:
Dear Sir,

I recently had the opportunity to debate with a person of a different religion who said that he found the Karma theory flawed and we had an interesting debate which finally he bowed out from cos he did not want to answer some of my questions and he concluded that I have an atheistic view since I was discussing on technical points and he still wanted to subscribe to the idea of a God somewhere up in heaven that decides everything.

But all I can say from that debate that it actually opened my eyes on how much a Non Hindu has done extensive study of Hindu material just to look for loop holes to "attack".

I am not finding fault with us Hindus but to a certain extent we are not prepared to face these types of people cos the Hindu had no intention to convert anyone so no need to find fault with any other religion but at the same time that does not mean we cant stimulate our own intellect to know more and how to explain when asked any question.

The main stay of attacking by a Non Hindu is the Puranas..cos imagination in Puranas tend to run wild and at times even degrade our own Divinties ..for example Lord Krishna is painted in our Puranas as a play boyish characters with 16,008 wives and surprisingly even ISCKON is supportive of this slander!

I remember reading a book written by Paramahansa Yogananda where He mentioned if there was chance he would take a life just to clear the name of Lord Krishna from all these stories.

So partly we Hindus are also to blame..no one wants to edit and censor the Puranas..everyone says "O' its symbolic..you are not ready to understand it..your are clouded by ignorance..you do not have the Gunas to imbibe the Jnaana etc"

Its all just excuses giving others the opportunity to find loop holes in the religion.Those who are secure in Hinduism are too obsessed with themselves that the common man is left out and not educated in religion.

There are preachers of Non Hindu religions that go around saying that "How can there be an Avatar? If the Hindu concept of God is Brahman..that is beyond everything..Formless..Unborn..unchanging..no beginning ..no end..then how can you say that God descends as an Avatar? Cos an Avatar is seen..an Avatar has a form..an Avatar has parents..an Avatar has birth and death..so how can He be God when god is not supposed to have all these criteria?"

So the Non Hindu is debating only about Nirguna Brahman and refused to acknowledge Saguna Brahman just to shoot down the Avatar theory...so to the innocent mind who is not aware of Saguna and Nirguna concept he succumbs to such preaching and converts.

Many Non Hindus also ask "how come you are praying to a God who chased after wife of others(Gopikas)?"

Thanks to our Puranas and the hyperactive imagination of the writers..some Hindus would be wondering what to answer.

We cant just run away from all these facts and have to learn how to counteract these questions when asked.

But if we keep wanting not to think and just follow without questioning or even dare make change to edit the Puranas..we should not complain if any Hindu converts.
Click to expand...
 
vikrama said:
Dear Sri TKS,
I agree with you in general. The ordinary people when confronted with difficult questions on religion by critics are unable to respond properly and lose the argument.
When we profess that vedas are the basis of Hinduism, it is necessary to arm every Hindu with the basic tenets of Vedas lest they be converted by unscrupulous proselytizers. But Vedas are beyond the reach of the common man.

It is not difficult to produce pamphlets on the greatness of Hinduism containing the answers to the critics. I do not find much has been done in this regard.

The other religionists misrepresent our scriptures and cause confusion in the minds of the religiously illiterate. I frequently come upon pamphlets misquoting Bhagavad Gita which say things favourable to them. Once the son of my christian neighbour came to me with a booklet containing such misinformation. Luckily, I had the Bhagavadgita book handy. I showed him the relevant chapter and verse and pointed out the blunder of the booklet. He saw through the mischief of his own people. He was convinced and now he has great regard for the BG.
We should have, as it were, a sort of pamphlet-war to counteract and our madadhipatis are slow to realise this.
Click to expand...

Dear Sri Vikrama

I have lived in USA for many decades that includes almost all my adult life. My children being born here needed to understand significance in following our traditions. In trying to answer their questions I came across many misconceptions about Hinduism held by large number of people who are themselves Hindus. There is a need for proper education and perhaps a pamphlet or FAQ is needed much like what I helped prepare about the top 25 misconceptions about Hindus for my children some 15 years ago.

In one of our visits to India we stayed at a hotel in Mysore (probably Woodlands? - I do not remember but it was a long time ago). Interestingly the hotel had kept a copy of Bhagavad Gita in our room with commentaries by some unknown person. My children started finding large number of misconceptions being propagated in that book.

There are also traditions practiced by some sections like Sathyanarayana Puja. There is a ritual - mostly practiced by people from North India - to read the stories in English. Such narration portrays Isvara as a vengeful and mean spirited person ! At least that is what many kids felt when they attend such rituals. I think Sri Prasad even had a thread on this topic some years ago.

Our Matams are ruled by economic interests it seems. Daivatthin Kural was one of the best publications to come out but that was many years ago. I am not sure how connected the people at various Matams are about issues of this kind.

I have found Rajiv Malhotra's writings address many of the high level questions that Hindus have about Hinduism.

At a minimum what is needed is a website (modern version of a pamphlet) with simple writings, FAQ on misconceptions about Hinduism, and overview of the deep significance of many of the religious traditions. Matams are best positioned to host such a website - let us use our collective influence to help create such a forum.


Unfortunately the web has created new issues with every Tom-Dick-and-Harry using buzz words of Vedanta without any understanding often presenting a ludicrous image of the teaching. Many have genuine interest but do not have the time or focus to learn the material in a proper setting. This is best addressed by ignoring such voices in my view for now...


Regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top