My Shirdi trip- some thoughts and questions

[Vaagmi]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Where are you getting at? Are you also one of the fanboys who brook no criticism of their 'enlightened masters'?

Btw, google codex bible.

That does not answer my question which is a simple one. Answer please. I am not a fan boy or a khoon boy. I am just curious. A straight answer please. Thank you.

 

[ashwin_ash]

That does not answer my question which is a simple one. Answer please. I am not a fan boy or a khoon boy. I am just curious. A straight answer please. Thank you.

I do not believe he rose from the dead, simply because there's no proof. Btw, his tomb is in kashmir acc. new findings.

 

[Vaagmi]

This is obviously false. Vedantam proclaims three paramount texts and they are called prastana thraiyam.

(i) Vedas -- (a) the entirety of poorva mimamsa is not Q/A type, it is full of fanciful stories, rituals, the purported benefits of these rituals, and elaborate rules for conducting these rituals -- no Q/A here and it is a fact, not my opinion; and (b) only parts of uttara mimamsa, i.e upanishads, are formatted in the Q/A conversation type. Of the rest, some start nominally with a question to be followed by an one-way lecture of doctrine, and the remaining are just fanciful but confident narrations of whatever they assert as final and ultimate truth.

(ii) Brahmma Sutra -- a cryptic set of statements called sutras, nothing Q/A about them. Many smart people have been arguing for millenia about what they mean and have come to conclusions that cannot be more opposed. There is no Q/A here, and that is a fact.

(iii) Bhagavat Geeta is nominally Q/A in the sense Arjuna asks a few questions here and there, but it is essentially a one-way preaching of doctrine to a child-like arjuna, who is overawed by it all and says so himself on occasion.

So, the fact is, the most important texts upon which the various religions that fall under the rubric Vedantam are built, are in the most part not Q/A and the parts that are Q/A type are hardly significant to make the above sweeping claim that all, bracketed by asterisks, teachings are Q/A conversations. What I have stated in support are facts, not my opinion.

However, the larger point is, it does not logically follow that even if the so called teachings are presented in a Q/A conversation format that critical questioning of the doctrine is encouraged or even allowed. tks himself has repeatedly asserted that if one is unsatisfied with the answers provided, then, one must not think the answers are unsatisfactory, we must conclude that the questioner lacks commitment and/or effort, namely shraddha. This is not indicative of encouraging critical questioning, just the opposite of it.

Further, it is also an irrefutable fact that just as tks falsely asserts his religion encourages critical questioning, the tks's of other religions make the exact same claim, falsely of course. This is not my opinion, it is verifiable fact.

So, in summary, there is no fact to backup the assertion that the Vedantic religions allow critical questioning, let alone encourage it. Please note, none of what I have stated to make this summary statement is my opinion to be swept aside, these are facts.

Thanks ....

Nara,

I have a suggestion. Please put yourself in the place of a critically questioning student and frame your questions on all the issues on which you have questions to ask (which you are convinced that no one asked so far) and let us look for answers for them. That will show us where we stand. Instead of simply criticising vedas, vedanta, BG, sutras and other literature that is available as summary assertions it would help every one if you can frame your questions and present them here. People may be able to answer your questions. Or is it that you do not want answers from any body other than from the Acharyas(sutrakaras and bhashyakaras) and rishis themselves.

Surely you realize this is just your opinion. Just because Hindus worship a myriad of gods and in myriad of forms does not mean they have a respectful tolerance of other religions, far from it. I know for a fact that the Jeeyar of Ahobila Matam was severely criticized for just meeting with Shankarachariyar -- one who has clean shaved his head and cut off his poonal. This is not a mark of tolerance, but the opposite. Not that the Shankaracharyas fair well, they have no tolerance for fellow Hindus of lower castes, let alone other religions

.

Jeeyar was criticised by who? You can be critical of them. But to be critical of Hindus for that is........

Of course, I cannot expect anyone to comment on my opinions. I understand that. However, the point here is not my opinion, but it is about claims made that are contrary to facts.

What are the facts? Please list them. They are just your facts.

 

[tks]

Dear Sangom ji,

Just over lunch today I was telling my husband that we Hindus consider the cow sacred cos the bull is a beast of burden and the cow is a valuable asset cos it provides milk, fuel from its dung and also ghee for religious rites and indispensable to a Brahmin and they received Cows in Go Dhaan.

I was telling him that I feel its for these reasons Cows got rated as sacred..cos if God is present in every creature then why no donkey is worshiped??

Dear Sangom ji.. you know at times its kind of scary that I am starting to think a lot like you!LOL

Dr Renu

Isvara is in all forms in Hindu thinking.

So a donkey can very well be a *form* for worship (not that donkey can be worshiped - there is a big difference).

All religions have traditions and some activities that comprise rituals.

The purpose of a Puja is to get benefit by the role play (though a person doing the Puja may or may not be aware that they are actually doing a role play). There has to be a common understanding that everyone can follow for such a role play to be effective.

For example you may ask your son to do his studying at a given place if you can afford a place like that for him. The association with the same place may be conducive to learning (though learning can happen even in bathroom but we do not think it is conducive to learning).

There are traditions that have emerged recently. In internet world typing in all capital letters is considered shouting, red ink in this forum is reserved for moderator comment etc . A post can very well convey a meaning if written in all caps or in red ink. But we do not do that because of the meaning associated with a form.

Names and forms are emphasized in karmas and they take a different meaning in Vedanta.

Hindus worship Isvara in all kinds of forms with basis in Puranas or sometime completely made up. I heard there is a temple in Chennai that has a fused form of Ganesha and Hanuman ..

Cow is not any more sacred than any of us or any other animals at one level of thinking .

For the purposes of specific Puja which is a role play it is used as a symbol to represent a value.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear RR ji,

Yup I am aware of this..but it is easier handling a cow than a bull..ever seen a raging bull?

Bulls are very temperamental....so collecting cow dung is much easier than collecting bull dung.

Bulls mean business and you cant really mess with them..ever wondered why the swear word is Bull Sh*T and not Cow Sh*t?

Renukaji,

Try to go and touch a cow when she is in heats. She can even gore to death a powerful bull during that time.

 

[Vaagmi]

I do not believe he rose from the dead, simply because there's no proof. Btw, his tomb is in kashmir acc. new findings.

Proof is there. Mary Magdelain saw that and confirmed to others. If his tomb is in Kashmir we can claim christianity as a home grown religion.

 

[Nara]

1. Vedas: The teaching part relates *ONLY* to the knowledge section (Jnana) which is the last part of the Vedas (Upanishads).

tks, thank you for conceding in a backhanded way that your statement "*All* teachings are presented only as conversations (Q&A), (note the emphasis you put on the word "all" with two asterisks) is not supported by facts.

Also, in the name of giving context you are glossing over many of the facts, yes facts, not my opinion.

[1] Only some of the Upanishads are of Q/A conversation format.
[2] Some start with a question followed by a long one-way lecture format answer, that is it - no critical questioning.
[3] Many other Upanishads are simply doctrinal assertions like any other religion, and praise of deities.

So, your claim that *all* teachings are in Q/A conversation mode is still not supported by the facts even if we narrow the scope to, in your words, "*ONLY* to the knowledge section (Jnana)".

But all these are less important. The most important objection is as follows:

Just because some of the so called teachings are presented in a Q/A conversation format there is no reason to conclude rational and critical questioning is encouraged or even allowed, any more than to conclude the Christian and Muslim claims that their religious doctrine is most logical and rational because they are straight from God's own mouth. If the claimed Q/A format is proof positive of anything, then claims of God's own mouth is equally proof positive for the same thing, in other words, both are irrational.

​

BTW, tks, please note, I have not read any of the western glosses of original commentaries, my sparse knowledge in these matters comes from original texts and glosses written by traditional acharyas in the vernacular.

tks, you say it is irrelevant to take into account the fact there is so much disagreement regarding what is the true meaning of BS? Why is it irrelevant? Please note, it is not some technical disagreement that common folks can ignore, we are talking about diametrically opposite conclusions. To tell a student this is irrelevant is like telling him he is not allowed ask such questions and to just shut up and study hard.

Your comments about Hindu mode of pooja goes to show each religion has devised its own unique mode of prayer/worship. They do not support your theory that Hindu religion is somehow rational while the others are not.

​

Just because I am making comments about Puja please do not come to the conclusion that I am a theist . I am not.

Ok.

 

[ashwin_ash]

tks, thank you for conceding in a backhanded way that your statement "*All* teachings are presented only as conversations (Q&A), (note the emphasis you put on the word "all" with two asterisks) is not supported by facts.

Also, in the name of giving context you are glossing over many of the facts, yes facts, not my opinion.

[1] Only some of the Upanishads are of Q/A conversation format.
[2] Some start with a question followed by a long one-way lecture format answer, that is it - no critical questioning.
[3] Many other Upanishads are simply doctrinal assertions like any other religion, and praise of deities.

So, your claim that *all* teachings are in Q/A conversation mode is still not supported by the facts even if we narrow the scope to, in your words, "*ONLY* to the knowledge section (Jnana)".

But all these are less important. The most important objection is as follows:

Just because some of the so called teachings are presented in a Q/A conversation format there is no reason to conclude rational and critical questioning is encouraged or even allowed, any more than to conclude the Christian and Muslim claims that their religious doctrine is most logical and rational because they are straight from God's own mouth. If the claimed Q/A format is proof positive of anything, then claims of God's own mouth is equally proof positive for the same thing, in other words, both are irrational.

​

BTW, tks, please note, I have not read any of the western glosses of original commentaries, my sparse knowledge in these matters comes from original texts and glosses written by traditional acharyas in the vernacular.

tks, you say it is irrelevant to take into account the fact there is so much disagreement regarding what is the true meaning of BS? Why is it irrelevant? Please note, it is not some technical disagreement that common folks can ignore, we are talking about diametrically opposite conclusions. To tell a student this is irrelevant is like telling him he is not allowed ask such questions and to just shut up and study hard.

Your comments about Hindu mode of pooja goes to show each religion has devised its own unique mode of prayer/worship. They do not support your theory that Hindu religion is somehow rational while the others are not.

​

Ok.

I still maintain that the brahmanical misappropriation of a muslim person who simply used to stare at the sky and utter "allah malik" is abhorrent, to say the least. The veracity of any claimed miracle in any 'religion' should be probed before forming opinions.

The pathetic bit is, the person who wrote sai satcharita, Mr Dabholkar, his family has now latched on to a brand new godman named aniruddha bapu who is repulsive from even a mile away.

 

[Nara]

1.Without bending over backwards I am making a straight and simple claim that my faith-hinduism, the vedic religion- does not demand unquestioning faith, encourages critical thinking and questioning. Please prove me wrong here in this forum with your argument.

Vaagmi, you are turning the rules of debate on its head. If you make an assertion, then you have to provide the proof, it is not my responsibility to prove you wrong.

2. You have said "Further, without fail, ask them any truly difficult question and without fail all of them will insist you can see the answer only if you have proper commitment and determination to see the proper answers". Please ask me your difficult questions. I promise I will not ask you show your commitment and determination. Please.

There are so many, let us start with a couple,
[1] What is the rational basis for the Vedas to be taken as a font of true knowledge.
[2] If God can exist as swyambu, why not jagat?

3.You also said "But Hindus have disdain for others, not tolerance -- tolerance involves respect..". In any of the gulf countries there is no Hindu or a christian or a jain or budhdhist citizen. In India you have a citizen of every religion in the world. Some disdain this. If disdain was there, moghuls and Nawabs of other dynasties would not have ruled this country peacefully, happily maintaining a zenana full of concubines.

Vaagmi, the presence of other religious folks in India does not prove there was respectful tolerance. The Hindus did not welcome the Moguls or the Nawabs to come and live among them in peace, they came wielding the sword and the Hindus didn't have any say in the matter.

 

[sangom]

I still maintain that the brahmanical misappropriation of a muslim person who simply used to stare at the sky and utter "allah malik" is abhorrent, to say the least. The veracity of any claimed miracle in any 'religion' should be probed before forming opinions.

The pathetic bit is, the person who wrote sai satcharita, Mr Dabholkar, his family has now latched on to a brand new godman named aniruddha bapu who is repulsive from even a mile away.

I do not think there is any brahmanical misappropriation in this case. It is, at best, a hindu misappropriation and brahmins, as is their wont or as is generally liked by all sections of hindus, have become the poojaris. Is that not the correct position?

 

[Nara]

... People may be able to answer your questions. Or is it that you do not want answers from any body other than from the Acharyas(sutrakaras and bhashyakaras) and rishis themselves.

Vaagmi, I welcome that. I have already asked a couple of questions, let us start from those two. Let the answers be logically and rationally defensible, whether or not they are given by acharyas.

Jeeyar was criticised by who? You can be critical of them. But to be critical of Hindus for that is........

Other orthodox SVs criticized Jeeyar that he met face-to-face with Sankaracharyar. With this I am pointing out the kind of tolerance practiced, that is all. Hindus, especially the Hindutva folks, love to claim theirs is a religion of tolerance, but the truth is more complicated.

What are the facts? Please list them. They are just your facts.

Go back and read my posts, I have listed them there, if you think these are my facts, then point them out to me.

 

[tks]

tks, thank you for conceding in a backhanded way that your statement "*All* teachings are presented only as conversations (Q&A), (note the emphasis you put on the word "all" with two asterisks) is not supported by facts.

Also, in the name of giving context you are glossing over many of the facts, yes facts, not my opinion.

[1] Only some of the Upanishads are of Q/A conversation format.
[2] Some start with a question followed by a long one-way lecture format answer, that is it - no critical questioning.
[3] Many other Upanishads are simply doctrinal assertions like any other religion, and praise of deities.

So, your claim that *all* teachings are in Q/A conversation mode is still not supported by the facts even if we narrow the scope to, in your words, "*ONLY* to the knowledge section (Jnana)".

But all these are less important. The most important objection is as follows:

Just because some of the so called teachings are presented in a Q/A conversation format there is no reason to conclude rational and critical questioning is encouraged or even allowed, any more than to conclude the Christian and Muslim claims that their religious doctrine is most logical and rational because they are straight from God's own mouth. If the claimed Q/A format is proof positive of anything, then claims of God's own mouth is equally proof positive for the same thing, in other words, both are irrational.

​

BTW, tks, please note, I have not read any of the western glosses of original commentaries, my sparse knowledge in these matters comes from original texts and glosses written by traditional acharyas in the vernacular.

tks, you say it is irrelevant to take into account the fact there is so much disagreement regarding what is the true meaning of BS? Why is it irrelevant? Please note, it is not some technical disagreement that common folks can ignore, we are talking about diametrically opposite conclusions. To tell a student this is irrelevant is like telling him he is not allowed ask such questions and to just shut up and study hard.

Your comments about Hindu mode of pooja goes to show each religion has devised its own unique mode of prayer/worship. They do not support your theory that Hindu religion is somehow rational while the others are not.

​

Ok.

1. "All teachings" - is still valid.. Any other portions are not teaching topics subject to Q&A & thinking. All Upanishads teach only one point from different perspectives

2. Not sure I understand your 'important objection' - The Q&A format goes in depth is many Bhashyas also - teaching is presented as Q&A between a student and teacher or in a 'Purva Paksha' format. There are no mandates that you must just accept. I am not sure how any thousand-year old scriptures will convey that critical reasoning is encouraged.

All the people I have learnt have encouraged very detailed questions in today's context.

I find the series of relentless questions of some of the students very insightful and challenging in the Upanishads (e.g., Svetaketu to his father/teacher).

These are not claims or just format of presentation only.

Your analogy to other religions which are claims only do not have a place here in the discussion in my view.

3. To your objection - "tks, you say it is irrelevant to take into account the fact there is so much disagreement regarding what is the true meaning of BS? Why is it irrelevant? Please note, it is not some technical disagreement that common folks can ignore, we are talking about diametrically opposite conclusions. To tell a student this is irrelevant is like telling him he is not allowed ask such questions and to just shut up and study hard."

Even in Science there are diametrically opposite assertions and conclusions. The nature of reality, nature of space & time are diametrically opposite in classical and so called modern science. Both have value and are unified at another level. But for a person who is contemplating to learn Science these differences are irrelevant until you are at a stage when you have mastered one of them. If you are sincere student there are ways to unify these diametrically opposing ideas.

We are not talking here like sincere students in the quest to learn having fulfilled pre-requisites.

For a debate and discussions here the differences are not relevant in my view since the qualifications to have that level of detailed discussions does not exist here.


4. Finally I find my words twisted and used out of context. In this statement
"Your comments about Hindu mode of pooja goes to show each religion has devised its own unique mode of prayer/worship. They do not support your theory that Hindu religion is somehow rational while the others are not."

I am not bringing any other religion into the picture and the main point I made was that in Hindu worship many forms are available. I provided comments as to why many forms for the one and only Isvara is possible. This is in the DNA of Hindus which is why they can even accept a Sai Baba who may have lived in a Mosque. Over time the detailed history of his life becomes irrelevant and his 'form' only matters for his devotees since it represents a value to them.

 

[ashwin_ash]

Vaagmi, I welcome that. I have already asked a couple of questions, let us start from those two. Let the answers be logically and rationally defensible, whether or not they are given by acharyas.

Other orthodox SVs criticized Jeeyar that he met face-to-face with Sankaracharyar. With this I am pointing out the kind of tolerance practiced, that is all. Hindus, especially the Hindutva folks, love to claim theirs is a religion of tolerance, but the truth is more complicated.

Go back and read my posts, I have listed them there, if you think these are my facts, then point them out to me.

The foremost Iyengar preacher these days is D A Joseph. I am not trying to link SSB and this Joseph guy, but I see an emerging pattern. Hinduism is facing an existential crisis, and homemade local false gods shoot into prominence to fill the vacuum.

 

[tks]

Vaagmi,

1. you are turning the rules of debate on its head. If you make an assertion, then you have to provide the proof, it is not my responsibility to prove you wrong.

2. There are so many, let us start with a couple,
[1] What is the rational basis for the Vedas to be taken as a font of true knowledge.
[2] If God can exist as swyambu, why not jagat?

3. Vaagmi, the presence of other religious folks in India does not prove there was respectful tolerance. The Hindus did not welcome the Moguls or the Nawabs to come and live among them in peace, they came wielding the sword and the Hindus didn't have any say in the matter.

I will let Sri Vaagmi respond (including item 1)

2. [1] Please define what is rational basis - define axioms which form your basis. Define what is 'true'. Hand waving cannot do

[2]God / Isvara exists/manifests as Jagat as well in this understanding - so there is no controversy.

3. Hindus thinking is not about tolerance which is what the biblical religions say. Tolerance means I do not agree with you, do not really respect your thinking but I let you be around. Hindu thinking is about acceptance. Some of the references I provided by Malhotra and Swamy as well lectures by Swami Vivekananda makes this point extremely well

 

[Nara]

.....2. [1] Please define what is rational basis - define axioms which form your basis. Define what is 'true'. Hand waving cannot do

tks, please note that I was responding to Vaagmi's request: "Please ask me your difficult questions. I promise I will not ask you show your commitment and determination. Please."

My first question to him was about the notion of Vedic inerrancy. Vedantam starts out with the assertion that Vedas is the ultimate source of inerrant knowledge. The validity of Vedantam rests upon this prerequisite. Nobody has seen or observed God. In other words, the existence of God cannot be established through the two sources of knowledge, Pratyaksham and anumanam. That leaves the third source, testimony. For Vedantins, the testimony of Vedas is unassailable and therefore, citing Vedic verses is sufficient proof to establish the existence of God. My question to Vaagmi is why should I accept this? On what basis can you claim the testimony of Vedas is unassailable? To say it is aupureshaya is irrational, and so is the underlying assumption that aupurusheya means unassailable truth.
There are more related questions, but this is a start. Now, make your case.

[2]God / Isvara exists/manifests as Jagat as well in this understanding - so there is no controversy.

It is unsatisfactory, to say the least, that in "this understanding" this is so. It has as much strength as saying in "this misunderstanding" this is so. Even Advaitam which claims everything other than Nriguna Brhman is illusory, gives elaborate description of how Jagat is created through a deliberative process by a creator. One of the reasons given for this is Jagat being an effect must have a cause, unlike God who is asserted to exist without a cause. This is the context of my question. To say that in your understanding there is no controversy just is not satisfactory, otherwise, such a statement can be used to justify anything.

3. Hindus thinking is not about tolerance which is what the biblical religions say. Tolerance means I do not agree with you, do not really respect your thinking but I let you be around. Hindu thinking is about acceptance. Some of the references I provided by Malhotra and Swamy as well lectures by Swami Vivekananda makes this point extremely well

I don't know why you have skipped the level of animosity that exists between different Brahminical sects and between Brahmins and other castes in the religious institutions, and still want to carve out an exception for your religion against others. BTW, what Malhotra, Swamy, et al., say may be important to you, but they are not for me, what they say are historically false and self-serving.

Hindus visiting Nangoor Andavan or Velankanni do so to fulfil commercial transactions just as they would in the hills of Venkataramana Govinda or Palani. The same way some ordinary Christians and Muslims visit Thiruppati or Madurai temple and make huge offerings. Many here would attest to this fact. If you are talking about this kind of tolerance or acceptance, then it exists among all, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains, etc. But, on a doctrinal level ,there is no tolerance or acceptance in any of these religions, not even between different sects within the same religion, and Hinduism is no exception.

 

[tks]

tks, please note that I was responding to Vaagmi's request: "Please ask me your difficult questions. I promise I will not ask you show your commitment and determination. Please."

1. My first question to him was about the notion of Vedic inerrancy. Vedantam starts out with the assertion that Vedas is the ultimate source of inerrant knowledge. The validity of Vedantam rests upon this prerequisite. Nobody has seen or observed God. In other words, the existence of God cannot be established through the two sources of knowledge, Pratyaksham and anumanam. That leaves the third source, testimony. For Vedantins, the testimony of Vedas is unassailable and therefore, citing Vedic verses is sufficient proof to establish the existence of God. My question to Vaagmi is why should I accept this? On what basis can you claim the testimony of Vedas is unassailable? To say it is aupureshaya is irrational, and so is the underlying assumption that aupurusheya means unassailable truth.
There are more related questions, but this is a start. Now, make your case.

2.It is unsatisfactory, to say the least, that in "this understanding" this is so. It has as much strength as saying in "this misunderstanding" this is so. Even Advaitam which claims everything other than Nriguna Brhman is illusory, gives elaborate description of how Jagat is created through a deliberative process by a creator. One of the reasons given for this is Jagat being an effect must have a cause, unlike God who is asserted to exist without a cause. This is the context of my question. To say that in your understanding there is no controversy just is not satisfactory, otherwise, such a statement can be used to justify anything.

3. I don't know why you have skipped the level of animosity that exists between different Brahminical sects and between Brahmins and other castes in the religious institutions, and still want to carve out an exception for your religion against others. BTW, what Malhotra, Swamy, et al., say may be important to you, but they are not for me, what they say are historically false and self-serving.

Hindus visiting Nangoor Andavan or Velankanni do so to fulfil commercial transactions just as they would in the hills of Venkataramana Govinda or Palani. The same way some ordinary Christians and Muslims visit Thiruppati or Madurai temple and make huge offerings. Many here would attest to this fact. If you are talking about this kind of tolerance or acceptance, then it exists among all, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains, etc. But, on a doctrinal level ,there is no tolerance or acceptance in any of these religions, not even between different sects within the same religion, and Hinduism is no exception.

1. I have responded about this item a few times in the past. Some teachers use inerrant nature of Vedas as a starting point. For many of us that is not acceptable. So I say that start *learning* without accepting anything that is said as true and discover what is inerrant.

If one does not have some belief that the effort is worth it one will not make even an attempt to learn. You may be already convinced that there is nothing there so you may not put the effort. I approached any statement as wrong and discovered the profound wisdom. I still approach that way.

There is no compulsion to learn any of this in our tradition.

Even Atheists are also included in the Hinduism umbrella - Sankhya and Veiseshikas are actually Atheists.

In the end you have to have a reason to learn anything. Once that is clear and a problem statement is clearer rest of the teaching will make sense. Best way to learn is to question anything and everything until it all make sense .

Sri Vaagmi may have different perspective.

My view is you are fine the way you are - it is your call to make a case as to why you should learn. If you have no reason to do so that is fine also

2. All this has to do with definition of Isvara. I have an idea of what you think that definition is based on my understanding of what you have posted before. I can make a equally good case why such a God you think does not make sense. The point I am trying to make is that definition of Isvara has to be clear for all of us to have a conversation or debate.

We are confronted with whatever we take ourselves to be , we are confronted with a world of beings that seem to have life and no life and we are confronted with some kind of an idea of a all powerful God as an idea. We see many laws in action that we are able to leverage as human beings. But we are unable to create an all pervading law. If we are curious what this is all about we begin to ask questions.

You asked 'if Svayambu' can be taken as God why not the whole Jagat itself and I answered that.

A form of God is this entire Jagat itself as it appears.

For some people forms defined in Puranic stories is a definition of God

For others God is the one that creates, sustains and unto whom it is resolved.

All the above including notions of Nirguna Brahman are not contradictory.

These are just assertions here and you are welcome to reject them. If you want deeper understanding then you have to spend time to learn properly.

I can only illustrate with an analogy here.

If I tell you that based on modern physics and the understanding derived in the last 100 years that this brick is equivalent to the light that you see. It is an assertion. If you ask how such an absurd thing can be true I will say some more concepts. You will say the whole thing is nonsense and show me proof. I can rattle a few more instances of how something is verified. But in the end for you to see this you have to learn the subject properly.

3. I have a request that I would like you to consider. If you are respectful and kind to people you should use terminologies that does not cause hurt. You pointed out earlier how not to use a term that is derogatory to Native Americans. It has to do with how a word is perceived within a given context of people and time.

In this forum the definition of Brahminism (as found in Internet resources) by non-brahmins is a derogatory description and hence you should not use it if you care to be sensitive.

If you tell me instances of someone mistreating some other human being using their birth status I will join you in condemning the action. My definition of Brahminism is not anything like yours so we do not have same understanding of the word and I consider your use of the word as derogatory and generalization of a group today that has no power to cause harm.

In other word focus on the act and not generalize to all human beings having the tag which they did not have anything to do with.

I know this request will go against anything you stand for but if you care to be loving all human beings unconditionally you have to change how you make your point.

Now to answer your questions I did not want to repeat the points made by Malhotra et al. It is not that I care for an analysis because they said so but based on content of their analysis. Similarly at the doctrine level Sri Vivekananda makes the case how Hinduism is all accepting which goes beyond tolerating others. I did not want to make those points here and just referred to their lectures.

Animosity exists between human beings that think they belong to any group. This arise out of ignorance.

When I was growing up in Delhi I viewed myself as South Indian , after coming to USA as a student I was Indian and Asian (lumped with Chinese and Koreans etc). Now I think of myself as just a person and just another being with all other life forms. What is taught in Upanishads is that we are just beings with no special status compared to any other being. The fact that we are self aware is unique to human beings just like a Dog has extraordinary ability to use its nose.

Hinduism at its core for those that care to study and teach is it acknowledges the differences in manifestations. It does not attempt to 'unify the different' but reveals the essential unity among those apparently different

 

[Nara]

tks, you need to understand I am not posing these questions as an unprompted challenge, it really does not bother me what anyone wants to believe and how they rationalize their beliefs. But, when you make statements like *all*, Q/A means encouraging questioning, only in Hinduism there is tolerance/acceptance, I would like to point out the invalidity of these exceptionalist claims.

....If you tell me instances of someone mistreating some other human being using their birth status I will join you in condemning the action.

If you are serious about this I ask you to read Annihilation of Caste by B.R. Ambedkar. It is not enough to say I condemn birth-based discrimination, that is easy. We need to delve into historical context and understand the true nature of the oppressive discrimination that was carried out by the Brahmins and other upper castes with power, and the Varna ideology that was used to justify the oppression. You feel the name for this ideology is derogatory, without fully understanding the vile nature of it.

I don't accept the equivalence between the term Brahminism and the insulting term used for native Americans. One is a name of an ideology that assigns exalted and demeaning status to people based purely on birth, named thus by the supreme place given to Brahmins in the said ideology. The other is an insulting racial slur used by the invading conquerors against an innocent indigenous people simply minding their business. Brahmins can reject Brahminism and the criticism will no longer be felt, not so for native Americans, they cannot free themselves of being native American any more than a human being can free himself or herself from being human.

The term Brahminism does not refer to a group. It refers to an ideology that is still in practice and is till given pride of place by the revered Brahminical religious institutions. A comparison to drive home the point is the the second class status Mormon Church used to give to Blacks, which they have changed now, but Brahmnical Matams are still venerating Manu. If Brahmins rise up and reject this then only these deserve to be spared of the criticism.

but if you care to be loving all human beings unconditionally you have to change how you make your point.

You seem to care about Brahmin sensibilities much more than understanding the nature of Brahmnical oppression perpetrated for 1000 years with the aid of the sword of the upper castes. My unconditional love is for all my brothers and sisters, no more or no less for anyone who sees himself/herself as a group identity into which they are trapped. Unconditional love to me is to stand with the oppressed and call a spade a spade even if it causes hurt to the tender sensibilities of the high-born, who are no less deserving of love, but only without sparing the truth of what their high-born status entails.

So, sorry, can't do, I will continue to use the term Brahminism to mean what it does mean. There is an easy way to escape the heat, jettison this ideology, don't take ownership of it, then there will be no heat for you to feel.

 

[tks]

tks,

1. you need to understand I am not posing these questions as an unprompted challenge, it really does not bother me what anyone wants to believe and how they rationalize their beliefs. But, when you make statements like *all*, Q/A means encouraging questioning, only in Hinduism there is tolerance/acceptance, I would like to point out the invalidity of these exceptionalist claims.

2. If you are serious about this I ask you to read Annihilation of Caste by B.R. Ambedkar. It is not enough to say I condemn birth-based discrimination, that is easy. We need to delve into historical context and understand the true nature of the oppressive discrimination that was carried out by the Brahmins and other upper castes with power, and the Varna ideology that was used to justify the oppression. You feel the name for this ideology is derogatory, without fully understanding the vile nature of it.

3. I don't accept the equivalence between the term Brahminism and the insulting term used for native Americans. One is a name of an ideology that assigns exalted and demeaning status to people based purely on birth, named thus by the supreme place given to Brahmins in the said ideology. The other is an insulting racial slur used by the invading conquerors against an innocent indigenous people simply minding their business. Brahmins can reject Brahminism and the criticism will no longer be felt, not so for native Americans, they cannot free themselves of being native American any more than a human being can free himself or herself from being human.

The term Brahminism does not refer to a group. It refers to an ideology that is still in practice and is till given pride of place by the revered Brahminical religious institutions. A comparison to drive home the point is the the second class status Mormon Church used to give to Blacks, which they have changed now, but Brahmnical Matams are still venerating Manu. If Brahmins rise up and reject this then only these deserve to be spared of the criticism.

You seem to care about Brahmin sensibilities much more than understanding the nature of Brahmnical oppression perpetrated for 1000 years with the aid of the sword of the upper castes. My unconditional love is for all my brothers and sisters, no more or no less for anyone who sees himself/herself as a group identity into which they are trapped. Unconditional love to me is to stand with the oppressed and call a spade a spade even if it causes hurt to the tender sensibilities of the high-born, who are no less deserving of love, but only without sparing the truth of what their high-born status entails.

So, sorry, can't do, I will continue to use the term Brahminism to mean what it does mean. There is an easy way to escape the heat, jettison this ideology, don't take ownership of it, then there will be no heat for you to feel.

1. I have answered your points to whatever you have raised. I will stop now

2. I only care about the discrimination that exists today where the powerful takes advantage of the powerless in an unfair manner. I have no interest in history - I will leave that to people like you.
All discrimination are birth based in the end (not expecting you to agree)
I will read the book when I get a chance

My appeal to you was based on the fact that many people here in this forum do not agree with the definition of Brahminism by Non-Brahmins and think it is derogatory since they carry a tag of Brahmins by the way they were born (on which they had no control over). If that does not make sense to you I withdraw my request

 

[Nara]

2. I only care about the discrimination that exists today ....

tks, it is really disappointing that for you the present exists completely disconnected from the past!!! Yet, even in the present, the Brahmins fare very well on the median of social, economic, and political power in India. Or, are you one of those who want even the last Brahmin to be accorded the privileges of organized society before the best of the oppressed is shown any consideration?

My appeal to you was based on the fact that many people here in this forum do not agree with the definition of Brahminism

tks, I hope you realize in a forum named after Tamil Brahmins the views I espouse has no chance of popularity. I hope you are not one to confuse popularity with what is moral and truthful. History is replete with truthful and moral opinions that didn't have popular support. Be that as it may, but there is no denying that Brahminism is inseparable from Dharmashashthras, and the Dharmashashthras are not some ancient relic, it is a living code that the revered authority that Brahmins look up to give current credibility to. So, tks, you have a choice, are you going to fall back on majoritarianism or are you going to evaluate what is moral independent of majority peccadillos, take your pick.

 

[tks]

tks,

1. it is really disappointing that for you the present exists completely disconnected from the past!!! Yet, even in the present, the Brahmins fare very well on the median of social, economic, and political power in India. Or, are you one of those who want even the last Brahmin to be accorded the privileges of organized society before the best of the oppressed is shown any consideration?

2. tks, I hope you realize in a forum named after Tamil Brahmins the views I espouse has no chance of popularity. I hope you are not one to confuse popularity with what is moral and truthful. History is replete with truthful and moral opinions that didn't have popular support. Be that as it may, but there is no denying that Brahminism is inseparable from Dharmashashthras, and the Dharmashashthras are not some ancient relic, it is a living code that the revered authority that Brahmins look up to give current credibility to. So, tks, you have a choice, are you going to fall back on majoritarianism or are you going to evaluate what is moral independent of majority peccadillos, take your pick.

Nara - The only thing that you learn from the past is that mistakes will always be repeated perhaps in another form. There will be another world war, there will always be discrimination but using other reasons.

One has to address the problems of today. Whatever those that call themselves Brahmins is not really an issue - there are probably larger number of atrocities done to those so called Brahmin families compared to what they may be doing to others in the name of caste. But there are far serious issues ..than what is done to or done by so called Brhamins

The women who sold their daughters into sex slavery - CNN.com

Sex slavery, sex trafficking, child labor, kids & poor people working in mines under cruel condition (like mining diamond), extraordinary cruelty to animals, powerful forces doing systematic conversions (yes it is violence of a different kind even if you do not think so).... extraordinary number of farmer suicides in India, rape based violence on the rise ... to just name a few

To be stuck with a old issue even if attributable the way you do is not relevant today when repeatedly people have told you that caste related violence is pervasive across all kinds of middle castes.

A person caring about a better world for all will address issues of today ..

2. The point I mentioned has nothing to do with anything you have written. Most people who come here if they call themselves TB have not read Dharma Shastras. *Many here do not agree with the definition of Brahminism you use which was defined by non-brahmins * They are by and large caring people as caring as you & I are and do not want to instill pain on another in the name of their birth caste (assuming they are in power).

They do not agree with any past discrimination acts
You are not making any points with anyone (with one or two exceptions who will say the same thing over and over to chime in with you).
Since you focus on few areas in exclusion of all others one can surmise is that you do this to make yourself feel good. After that you are likely opening a bottle of wine to have fun

My point is not about being popular but acting in a way that is getting people to think in a forum like this without saying hurtful and irrelevant things. Anyway it is your call. I know you are going to dismiss what I have said. So I am forgetting all this as soon as I hit the send button!

While recently I have followed a few of the threads in GD section I have not read much of anyone's writing and therefore not yours in the last two years. I have not come across you saying anything complimentary about India, Hinduism, religions of India , etc. You may have but I have not come across that. So it is something you have to reflect on. You can dismiss what I am saying as not accurate and that is fine. But please think about it ...

 

[ashwin_ash]

tks, it is really disappointing that for you the present exists completely disconnected from the past!!! Yet, even in the present, the Brahmins fare very well on the median of social, economic, and political power in India. Or, are you one of those who want even the last Brahmin to be accorded the privileges of organized society before the best of the oppressed is shown any consideration?

tks, I hope you realize in a forum named after Tamil Brahmins the views I espouse has no chance of popularity. I hope you are not one to confuse popularity with what is moral and truthful. History is replete with truthful and moral opinions that didn't have popular support. Be that as it may, but there is no denying that Brahminism is inseparable from Dharmashashthras, and the Dharmashashthras are not some ancient relic, it is a living code that the revered authority that Brahmins look up to give current credibility to. So, tks, you have a choice, are you going to fall back on majoritarianism or are you going to evaluate what is moral independent of majority peccadillos, take your pick.

Hey.. Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are STILL ostracized. People want our money (the church's money, really) to fund their election campaigns et al. Please do not talk about LDS', the persecution in the early days has driven us underground, just so people do not call Mormons 'weirdos'.

 

[Vaagmi]

Nara,

I will be replying to your points. Right now I have problems with my internet connection. I am posting this in the short window of time it allowed me access. Thanks.

 

[Vaagmi]

Nara,

I will be replying to your points. Right now I have problems with my internet connection. I am posting this in the short window of time it allowed me access. Thanks.

Dear Nara,

I prepared a detailed reply to you. But gave up. I thought it is futile to argue with you. I am any way presenting below a part of that in the hope that it presents a view in all sincerety. If it is not so please forget it. Peace be with you. Thanks.

Usually people in their young age first go to the pramanam to know the truth about God and religion. As they come across situations where they do not get answers to the querries that come up, they start discounting the scriptures and other material (teaching by scholars etc.,)and start building up a structure in which there is no place for God. If they (at least some of them) find answers to their querries and are satisfied with them, move to the next stage looking for , understanding, following, praying to, celebrating, loving, showing bhakti, holding in reverence etc, of the prameyam called God. The pramanam speaks about only this prameyam. For them accepting the prameyam is easy now because they have gone through the grind already with all the disturbing questions and doubts, intuitions, revelations, meditations, ruminations and realization etc,.

There is an unusual set of people too. They start with the prameyam first because they are born orthodox. They are disciplined by elders in the family to unquestioningly accept what is given to them as the truth. The prameyam comes first here. The given thing is the God. Accept it. No choices. No questions. As they grow up, with the newly acquired freedom and independence and curiosity, they start looking at the given prameyam and in turn look for the pramanam. Because they have been smarting under the repressive thrust, the pramaanam which confirms whatever they know already becomes suspect first and then a piece of untruth. Now they discard the pramanam as well as the prameyam. They feel relieved of the load that had been troubling them for long. For this group there is no hope. They are hopelessly lost in a grand confusion.

There is no use arguing with the second group. They are an angry lot who will viciously hit back at any one who talks to them about the pramanam or prameyam. It is futile trying to tell them about pramanam because they would have looked into all the pramanam and rejected it not because they are untrue but because they are angry with the way the prameyam and pramanam was served to them in a grand feast.

 

[sangom]

Dear Nara,

I prepared a detailed reply to you. But gave up. I thought it is futile to argue with you. I am any way presenting below a part of that in the hope that it presents a view in all sincerety. If it is not so please forget it. Peace be with you. Thanks.

Usually people in their young age first go to the pramanam to know the truth about God and religion. As they come across situations where they do not get answers to the querries that come up, they start discounting the scriptures and other material (teaching by scholars etc.,)and start building up a structure in which there is no place for God. If they (at least some of them) find answers to their querries and are satisfied with them, move to the next stage looking for , understanding, following, praying to, celebrating, loving, showing bhakti, holding in reverence etc, of the prameyam called God. The pramanam speaks about only this prameyam. For them accepting the prameyam is easy now because they have gone through the grind already with all the disturbing questions and doubts, intuitions, revelations, meditations, ruminations and realization etc,.

There is an unusual set of people too. They start with the prameyam first because they are born orthodox. They are disciplined by elders in the family to unquestioningly accept what is given to them as the truth. The prameyam comes first here. The given thing is the God. Accept it. No choices. No questions. As they grow up, with the newly acquired freedom and independence and curiosity, they start looking at the given prameyam and in turn look for the pramanam. Because they have been smarting under the repressive thrust, the pramaanam which confirms whatever they know already becomes suspect first and then a piece of untruth. Now they discard the pramanam as well as the prameyam. They feel relieved of the load that had been troubling them for long. For this group there is no hope. They are hopelessly lost in a grand confusion.

There is no use arguing with the second group. They are an angry lot who will viciously hit back at any one who talks to them about the pramanam or prameyam. It is futile trying to tell them about pramanam because they would have looked into all the pramanam and rejected it not because they are untrue but because they are angry with the way the prameyam and pramanam was served to them in a grand feast.

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

Kindly permit me to say a few words.

I feel all people cannot be classified in the two categories you refer to above. For example, I will like to say about myself. I was born in an orthodox family but there was no compulsion (possibly because both my grandfathers died by the time I was 7 years old, and my father, though ordinarily orthodox and a conformist did not know much beyond the superficialities and did not compel us kids into anything religious. But I grew up as an ordinary, run-of-the-mill tabra, got married, brought up my children with much financial difficulty, and now, my wife & I are comfortably leading retired life-end. Till about the time of retirement I continued to be the ordinary, run-of-the-mill tabra with all the "looking for , understanding, following, praying to, celebrating, loving, showing bhakti, holding in reverence etc, of the prameyam called God."

After my retirement I started spending much of my time in reading our original scriptures and their commentaries in Tamil, Malayalam, Hindi by indian scholars. This opened up a hitherto unseen world and I slowly started doubting the pramaanams themselves, though the prameyam did exist in my mind, unaffected. But the more I read (by that time I had acquired a PC and internet connection and could get access to several websites discussing our religion, scriptures, etc., and providing links to original commentaries by indian acharyas and scholars. The more I delved into the religion the more I got doubtful about the truth in the pramaanams and that led me finally to question whether the prameyam itself is faulty which was why all the pramanams have also become what they are. After still further reading and much effort at deeply thinking about these and other problems relating to religion itself per se, I have come to the conclusion that there is no anthropomorphic god at all.

May be, there are other people also, who hold a similar view.

 

[Nara]

....I prepared a detailed reply to you. But gave up. I thought it is futile to argue with you. I am any way presenting below a part of that in the hope that it presents a view in all sincerety. If it is not so please forget it. Peace be with you. Thanks.

You see Vaagmi, you are the one who wanted me to ask these questions, let me remind you and others, here is what you said:

2. You have said "Further, without fail, ask them any truly difficult question and without fail all of them will insist you can see the answer only if you have proper commitment and determination to see the proper answers". Please ask me your difficult questions. I promise I will not ask you show your commitment and determination. Please.

Now you are saying it is futile to argue with me. This is like waking up a sleeping person and telling him to go to sleep, what a crock!!!