• 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.

Hinduism's Conquest of the West

Status
Not open for further replies.
hh!

if one has agenda - the interpretation will be based on the agenda. this is called biased thinking aka coloured vision.

in our local language - we call like this "if one wears yellow colour spectacle one will see yellow every where".

so in your mind you have VA and so BP's bhasyam too is seen in that color.

It is well known - the BP is a proponent of Advaita. Common cool off.

Regards
 
in this regard, my opinion is, some of our forumites are not learned properly on the subject matter - but do a lot of speculation.

my advise to them, teacher,teaching and the parampara is available to till date - without indulging in "vetti vadham ", they should surrender to the lotus feet of a guru and quickly reach ashore.
 
Dear Sri MM Ji,

You exactly and exquisitely illustrate the point I made in my posting above.

Who decides what is the 'pinnacle'? Who knows? By stating this you are relegating anything other than Advaitha as subordinate as best or as inferior as worst. Are you more well versed in the Vedas and Upanishads than Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Mahavira or Gautama?

Why would you think that their interpretations of our scriptures are no less valid than what Shankara did?

Trying to understand your POV.

Regards,
KRS

malgova.mango said:
it is not a question of MY philosophy.

it is a question about what is the ultimate essence as said in our scriptures.

what is talked about is not "ultimate beilief " but "ultimate truth"

if one approach our scriptures without proper vinaya and guide , one can be easily bewildered and get confused.

simply because there are many contr-brands available in the market doesn't mean one shouldn't strive for Original Brands.

VA,Dvaita are all valid at certain level , but it is not the pinnacle.

I'm not at all bothered about adherents at different levels. In knowledge you have to reach the summit. there shouldn't be comprimise in that.
Click to expand...
 
mm-ji,

if we wish we can see VA in works of A and D.

if we wish we can see A in works of VA and D.

if we wish we can see D in works of VA and A.

if we wish we can move beyond theory (i realized theory does not suit me. there are no answers to everything).

if we wish we can move beyond attempting to prove something - that's the only thing was trying to say.

regards.
 
it is not my POV.

on the why part - there is a more structured teaching available . why not try that.

See in GURU there are 3 types.

1 - Uttama Guru - He is both Shrotriya and a Gnani ( Shrotriya meaning - a holder of paramaparic teaching , exposed to the nuancity of the teaching thoroughly)

2 - Madhima Guru - He is just a Shrotriya (not a gnani - he can only teach what the scriptures say)

3 - Adhama Guru - He is a Gnani - but lack the essential communication skill in teaching the subject. he may in luck could communicate to someone but he may also not.

So with Uttama Guru's available why waste time here?
 
to address the query of krs directly.

apart from Advaita - Dvaita and VA doesn't talk about Jeevan Mukthi.

In , dvai and VA the mahavakyas are rendered meaningless.
 
hh!

how many times i've to address this.

"Wish" has nothing to do in domain of Knowledge.

Regards
 
I agree. But so what? That does not make them in any way inferior - they are just different. Attaining mukthi may not be the end game. Buddhism goes even further, does not even talk about Brahman at all, like the mimamsa group debating Shankara did. Does that in anyway diminish Buddha's philosophy? In my opinion, no. People who can derive value out of his teachings still do.

We all have to remember that different religions / sects exist all over the world to satisfy their adherents spiritual quest. And these are sambradhayam/culture based. This is the reason one can not assign values to different philosophies and categorize them - it is like comparing apples and oranges. To me, Advaitha appeals to myself. But I would not argue that it is the supreme philosophy/knowledge. If I do, then skepticism disappears, a certain level of arrogance based on the certainity of 'knowledge' creeps in. And we do not grow as human beings. Exact problem I have with the approach of some fundamentalists in any religion.

Thank you for responding.

Regards,
KRS


malgova.mango said:
to address the query of krs directly.

apart from Advaita - Dvaita and VA doesn't talk about Jeevan Mukthi.

In , dvai and VA the mahavakyas are rendered meaningless.
Click to expand...
 
hey I'm here with intense emotion, to guide our people - if i go other religious forum and talk the supremity of us. then you can say i'm insensitive.

likes of you without even an iota of understanding what "purushartas" are began to misguide, i felt i should correct that. that's all.

i'm not putting down anybody, but in pointing the supremity and the uniqueness of our culture and values and for what we stand for, if i need to point some short-comings of others then I'll just do that.

i can talk - 4th, 3rd,2nd or even 1st purusharta. i've choice and complete freedom. i'll do that at my leisure.

it is not arrogance - it is conviction my dear.

Others offer SAND , ONLY we offer dishes to eat. you should read "ANDHAGAK KOLA KULA NYAYAM".
 
In one way , fundamentals are important - without that you cannot build anything.
 
Dear MM Ji,

Thank you for your honest response.

Yes, may be I don't know even an iota of the Purusharta. But your statement that I am 'mis guiding' others is not correct. I am posting here to discuss ideas. In the past I have found that such discussions are turned in to personal abuse by people with 'intense emotion'. Any truth should stand on its own merit. So, I am glad you are discussing ideas with an even keel. Thanks you for that.

I doubt the followers of Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva would think that Advaitha is the supreme philosophy. For you it is. For them it may not be.

Again, this simple truth seems to escape you. What difference then is there between you and an evangelist who is pushing his religion on others?

I happen to think that our religion is unique, mainly because it allows for all hues and colors within it to suit anyone's mental make up. You seem to think that Advaitha is the only ultimate truth. If that is the case, it would be self evident to everyone. But it is not.

I think, a person who has not heard about any of these theories follows one of the 4 paths, he/she would attain whatever is to be attained. All the rest is theory. It does not matter who we pray to, as long as we consciously strive to be good human beings, try to lose our egos and travel on our own path of spritualism on our own terms. This is why there is no such thing as some philosophy is superior to others. If this philosophy is so superior, I really think that a recent saint as Maha Periaval would not have been against any religious conversion of any sort in to any religion. He would have called for everyone even within Hinduism to follow Advaitha. Did He do that?

Religious philosophy is not like the cars we buy, where you can compare them and rate them as to which one is best. Because a person is raised within a particular culture, their identity is usually tied up with the religion they grew up with. So to tell them that their religion is not at the apex and is inferior to some other religion is to disrespect their identity.

Different religions/philosophies exist because of their need. Everyone grows at a different pace towards the eventual remerge in to Him. We are all born in to certain circumstances and placed where we are placed in the world, because our Karma acts as a soap cleaning our souls over time so that we can grow spiritually.

This is why I think it is wrong to say to others that some philosophy is the best of them all. I think, as I have said, that Advaitha suits me as a philosophy I like and I try to look at the world through it's lenses. I will never convert to any other religion, because for me it is superior. But I also understand for a person next to me, it may not be the right philosophy to follow, because of myriads of reasons.

I like Fundamentals, not the Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism never allows one to go beyong the Fundamentals.

Regards,
KRS



malgova.mango said:
hey I'm here with intense emotion, to guide our people - if i go other religious forum and talk the supremity of us. then you can say i'm insensitive.

likes of you without even an iota of understanding what "purushartas" are began to misguide, i felt i should correct that. that's all.

i'm not putting down anybody, but in pointing the supremity and the uniqueness of our culture and values and for what we stand for, if i need to point some short-comings of others then I'll just do that.

i can talk - 4th, 3rd,2nd or even 1st purusharta. i've choice and complete freedom. i'll do that at my leisure.

it is not arrogance - it is conviction my dear.

Others offer SAND , ONLY we offer dishes to eat. you should read "ANDHAGAK KOLA KULA NYAYAM".
Click to expand...
 
i'm not worried what others will think about me. I'm rather concerned with correctly informing my own people.

there is only one correct connection available - the rest are new off shoots. before they establish the siddantha - their masters duty is to negate the existing Advaitha philosophy if they did that,then what they say is correct. But they ignored adviata and began to preach what comes to their mind. that needs to be challenged.

their siddhanta doesn't tally with mahavakyas. it is wrong. a wrong has to be told as wrong. I don't see any wrong in that.

Philosophy is much more than what you think. a correct understanding will remove the suffering of life-times. whereas a wrong one will make you suffering intense for life-times.
it is where the whole religion and siddhanta comes.

I'm aghast with your callous attitude.

tattvam is the bedrock. One doesn't live only for the sake of eating and ***.
 
Hello everyone,

I had posted my views on #27 of this thread. I took a break and sat back to watch.

These were questions that cam to mind from observations:

How many postings on this thread are from one single person?
How many postings from others are pure eulogy?
How many postings from anyone (not just others) are content relevant to this topic?

Is expounding one's knowledge (book references) here on Hinduism and people related to Hinduism OR would it be of more relevance to highlight how Hinduism has made an impact in the west?

There are about 90 postings on this thread today. Please - someone make an effort to see if there are even 10 postings that reiterate the purpose of this topic.

My view again as in posting #27 is that: There has been no conquest of the west by Hinduism in the last 200 years. Even Vivekananda only kindled a passion to look this way, but did not try or complete any conquest. There is no conquest required and there better never be. Because we do not believe in conversions.
 
Last edited:
'Advaitam' is abstract and it is like chemical reaction. It's irreversible. It's one way traffic. Once attained, no looking back. 'This' reaches 'that' and both integrate to become one. It is for 'jnanis' and 'yogis'.

'Dwaitham' is like physical reaction. It is not permanent and off and on, universal consciousness comes and goes. Sometimes 'it' is close to us, but still remains elusive or out of reach. Our going nearer to it looks like a dream, afterwards. This is for those mortals with some divine blessings and some level of spiritual experience.

'Vishishtadvaitam' is total surrender before the cosmic power - by whatever name you call it, howsoever you feel it. It is based on 'Bhakti' concept and it's for ordinary mortals like us.

All are different approaches, but not contradictory to each other. Every one of these is special in its own way. They work on different planes, for different people. One cannot be called superior to the rest.

I used to describe and distinguish 'advaitam' and 'vishishtadvaitam' thus:

When the 'circle' and the 'centre' (central point) remain separated by being
in their own place, it is 'vishishtadvaitam'.


When the circle gradually contracts and gets drawn inwardly towards the
centre and finally merges with that centre, it is 'advaitam'.


All these happen unconsciously and all our efforts (Sadhana/Abhyasam) come to an end, at one stage, without our even knowing it.
 
Last edited:
vasu sir!

you are spot on.

pannvallan sir!

good gas work, i mean guess work.

Regards
 
Dear Sri Sridharvasudevan Ji,

Your point is well taken. I am probably contributing mightily towards apparently dragging this thread away from what the author intended. I apologize.

However, the subject of this thread, in my opinion, is intimately connected with my discussions with Sri MM Ji here.

'My people' he says. Who are 'my people'? Shankaracharyals are Jagat Gurus. They are just that because true advaitha envelops everything within its loving fold. People who seem to espouse advaitha but then bifurcate people as 'my people' and 'not my people' are not advaithins. They are the false prophets akin to a fundamentalist Mullah.

Sorry I am being harsh. I have heard enough. Sri MM Ji boasts about knowing all 4 purushartas. The basis of advaitha and life is humanity. He thinks that by 'knowing' about advaitham he somehow is human. Because when one does 'dharma' everything else is taken care of. But the basis of Dharma for a human being starts with empathy and knidness. No philosophy is superior to a human being's existence. They all exist for the welfare of the human and not vice versa.

He is perhaps a twenty percenter and I am probably less than that. When he becomes a 100 percenter, he can come here and preach. Because by then he would be a different person.

Regards,
KRS
 
Last edited:
Hinduism's conquest of the west

I wish to say a few points before exiting this thread. (I have not posted much under this thread; hence, I do hope our friend Sridhar Vasudevan and others will permit me to do so).

1. Conquest of the west was never an agenda, except for some
pseudo-saints, who wanted to earn name, fame and money.

2. However, in a limited sense, after people like G. U. Pope and other
westerners, Vivekananda did impress the west, by his Chicago speech
and this has kindled an interest of the western nations in Indian ethos
and values and its holy scripts.

3. Thousands of people who were thinking India as a land of elephants,
snake-charmers, beggars and rustics (sadhus) till then, started evincing
interest in knowing the other side of the India that they didn't get to
know earlier.

4. Hundreds started visiting India, in search of eternal truth and peace,
which were elusive to them, in their motherland.

5. There were visitors like Paul Brunton who visited Mahaperiyaval,
Ramana Maharishi et al for knowing, recording and giving to the
external world the best of Hindu philosophies.

6. On the other side, there were also visitors like hippies who came here
for studying Kama Sutra and allied areas and eventually were
addicted to drugs and perverted sex.

7. We Hindus do not force anyone to our path and do not indulge in
conversion as other faiths like Christianity and Islam do. If I am right,
even other Indian-born religions like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism
propogate, but don't convert others, with allurement of money,
employment and other favours.

8. We Hindus do not believe in using force or intimidation to compel
others to turn to our path or way of living. There is full freedom
given to every one, group and segment.

9. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world that contains
'nihilism' also a recognised branch of the religion itself and those who
practice it are accorded full protection, even though war of words
may erupt now and then between the believers and non-believers,
without snowballing into a social conflict. (EVR and his followers are
an exception).

10. We believe in peaceful co-existence with people of all other faiths
and practices and this is conquest of the humanity, not just the
west. That's the greatness of Hinduism.
 
Last edited:
Dear Pannvalan,

there is no question about the greatness of hinduism and hindu saints.

Your comments have been more only recently, in my opinion the thread went for a six long before that. History, geography, eulogy, (auto)biography and so on :)

I am just a young player on field. I came to play football, and found people had changed over to cricket during the game. I would definitely have played along this game if someone had declared it was cricket. :)

Being senior members, it is gracious of you all to have looked into this within a day of someone in the bench crying penalty corner during the cricket match.
 
Dear SV-ji,

Am wondering if its not ok for threads to move beyond the intended topic...we find many such threads here...the title is something...but the posts have moved far from the title.

I hope its ok to have a few unrelated topics squeezed into a thread (??).
 
Dear HH,

You know the young player sometimes looks at the rule book more becos, he still hasn't learnt the game fully yet. And he gets confused if there is too much cricket in football.

Naturally, if there is so much in fighting about the basic concepts of hinduism in this thread, then would we not be giving the impression "Hinduism is still a confusion for the East".

We must understand, there are at least a handful of visitors to this website at any point of time while there are only one or two members logged in.

A kid in the audience who came to see a football match for the first time went back home and said, why did they have to fight over a single ball for 90 minutes, can they not afford one for each?
 
i get your point SV-ji.

this place is open domain alright but i still consider it fairly private - there are less than 300 active participants. however, number of views vary...this particular thread has been viewed 1455 times, that's big, yep, so, yes guess you have a point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top