Hinduism, Violence & Self-Defence
Non-violence is the cardinal virtue recognized in Sanatana Dharma or any universal tradition. Non-violence is the supreme Dharma, the great law of life. To the extent that we fall from non-violence we cease to be truly religious and lose our connection with God.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am
this article of an authoritative source appears to be very just and wise explanation of non-violence vs dharma-yudha.
by this yard-stick, the massacers commited by some Hindus in post-independent India eg after the death of Indra Gandhi, after Ayodha, and after Godhra are examples of NOT dharam-yudha
because many innocent persons totally unconnected with any previous provocative reasons were killed, injured and raped including the women and children.
Most Hindu religious leaders have not categorally condemned these acts of violence but have often turned the dhirtrashtra blind eye
Even now they should come forward and declare unambiguously that such acts of violence are simply not acceptable in Hindu religion whatever the provocations and the consequences that be.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Ahimsa should be obvious to the devout Hindu, however, this guiding principle is “obviously” overlooked by many Hindus. Though “obviously” not a Hindu, Mr. David Frawley provides a service by pointing out the “obvious.” Interestingly, in a recent brief encounter with a so-called “Pandita” Indrani from Trinidad, she was totally against the basic principle of Ahimsa. Even more interesting was the agreement by (what one supposes to be Hindus–though they refuse to identify themselves) the Editors of the site “Invading The Sacred!”
We (Hindus) overlook Ahimsa at our own peril. Hindus must be setting the example for the younger religions. In that regard, Hindus must be (in most cases) teaching rather than capitualting to the Monotheists and others (look who is teachings so-called “yoga”). There is no “God” or “Lord” in Hinduism, and there is certainly no Monotheism (nor any “Theism”) in Hindu Dharma. Of course, we do have our sectarian fundamentalists.
Swami Param
Dharma Yoga Ashram (Classical Yoga Hindu Academy)
January 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Swami Param:
You wrote, “There is no “God” or “Lord” in Hinduism, and there is certainly no Monotheism (nor any “Theism”) in Hindu Dharma.”
You are giving a false idea about Hinduism ( or Sanatan Dharma) because although you took the name Swami, to make money but you have never read our Holy books.
according to Rig Veda, Upanishad and Bagwat Gita, Brahman is the ONe who is the origin of all creation, source of all, beginning and the end of all. Hinduism is just as Monotheistic as any other religions, but it is the oldest religion.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Swami Param:
Read this before you say Hinduism is not Monotheistic.
“He is One Brahma, The Creator of the cosmos, Who pervades and protects, And enlightens all beings, He is One Supreme Entity, Whom sages call by various names, Such as Indra, the glorious, Mitra, the benign friend, Varuna, the greatest, the noblest, Agni, the resplendent, the bright, Yama, the dispenser of justice, Matarishwa, the almighty” (Rig Veda, Book 1, Hymn 164, Verse 46).
January 21st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
My own personal view is that ‘Hinduism’ (!) CAN be monotheistic, CAN be henotheistic, CAN be POLYtheistic, CAN be agnostic, CAN be atheistic, CAN be anything that for the specific individual concerned adequately and suitably explains his/her own personal relationship with him/herself and all around.
Incidentally, I’m not sure whether Swami Param was being ironic above but in case not, I would take issue with the statement “Though “obviously” not a Hindu, Mr. David Frawley […]” My objection would be on two counts. Firstly, his title ought to be Dr. and not Mr. I accept that many Western academic institutions do not recognise the qualification of Shastri and its equivalence with a Western doctorate, but nevertheless, it is what it is. Secondly, unless one wishes to cling to the (in my opinion, frankly absurd) notion that one can only be born a Hindu, Dr. David Frawley (aka Pandit Vamadeva Shastri) is very much a practising Hindu.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Regarding the article itself, I personally prefer the term ‘ahimsa’ rather than ‘non-violence’. The latter term implies a complete lack of violence, whilst ‘ahimsa’ recognises that whilst committing violence is ‘himsa’, allowing violence to be committed by others is also ‘himsa’. My own personal view is that this was one of Gandhi’s significant mistakes - he misinterpreted ‘ahimsa’ (as taught by Hindu Scripture and tradition) as ‘non-violence’, which in truth is something quite different.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Stya: You are saying what is your personal view but that is not important. What is important is what is written in the Holy books of Hinduism, not your personal views.
According to these Holy books Sanatan Dharma cannot be anything but Monotheistic, as it accepts only ONE creator Brahman, only ONE source of all.
Atheism or materialism is not a part of Hindu religion, but of ancient Indian philosophy.
Unless one read these Holy books one would be confused. Rather than taking the views of Fawley or anyone else ( including the Saibabas or Guru Maharajjis) you should read the Holy books Rig Veda, Upanishad and Bhagwat Gita.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:24 pm
a.moron is a moron who has a severely debilitating inferiority complex that meddles with his ability to think or use common sense. where in rig veda is brahman even mentioned? brahman is always referred to as infinite and is never restricted to any numerical character.
a moron is adamant that we are monotheistic because he feels hinduism is inferior to the abrahamic faiths, so to make up for his fragile ego he has to invent myths like “hinduism is monotheistic just like other religions”, a statement which reeks of servility and slave attitude.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:57 am
Shri Satya has beautifully stated :
” My own personal view is that ‘Hinduism’ (!) CAN be monotheistic, CAN be henotheistic, CAN be POLYtheistic, CAN be agnostic, CAN be atheistic, CAN be anything that for the specific individual concerned adequately and suitably explains his/her own personal relationship with him/herself and all around.”
I feel, Shri Satya has great understanding of Hinduism and with whatever little I could understand, I fully concur with his these thoughts. {Even Charvaka has a place of Rushi in Hinduism ! )
However, I would venture to “qualify” his
above statement as a process of learning, educating ,
getting to know from * ignorance * to * ultimately atheism *; which is growing to ” maturity ”
One may wonder if ultimately it is “atheism” then why at all we need to
think of God in the earlier stages of our understanding. My feeling is that
thru this process of logical and rational explanations, it makes us know that essentially I am That .
Also, in almost 98% of cases of us human beings, the moment we hear the term God, intentionally or unintentionally, the mind think of a form, a location etc - probably due to the influence of Abrahamic theology.
Brahman means the TOTALITY. there is not a thing - { we cannot even use a word ‘ outside ‘ since there is no sides - } beyond - and in a better way it is explained as * Limitless *, ” Infinite etc ending up in ones own consciousness.
There is so much (mis)understanding about these terms including * Maya*.
The whole thing is a matter of understanding - and that is why even the term Dharma - which I understand is a word with its root as Dhr’ = Dharana = understanding * obviously understanding of the TOTALITY which is not going to be easy.
Here the topic was Non violence and Hinduism. Hinduism is not against anything, any action. All that it says is that, one need to have the * DHARANA = understanding * of the action. And what is the understanding of the Action ? It is the effects or results or consequences. If one is aware of these, then one is free to act up on. Why ? because, the one who is aware of the results / effects / consequences need to be ready to accept those - like it or not.
” I believe ” is not what any of the Sanatana Dharma Scriptures guide us.
I am told that even Veda tells its students that ” if Veda says that fire is cold do not accept it “. { I do not know where and how it is stated, but have heard this from several teachers of Vedanta }
And that is why Sanatana Dharma will never ” die ” like other ” faith ” based religions since man will get literate and then educated and education will open up inquiring minds and inquiring minds will end up ultimately in
” Aham Brahma Asmi ” or ” Thou art That “.
enjoy
February 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
hello:
Have you ever read Rig Veda or Upanishad or Bhagwat Gita. What A.Moron said is correct. We Hindus do not suffer from any inferiority complex, possibly you do. Hinduism is the oldest religion, all other religion follwed it including Arbrahamic religions. That is the reason there are similarities.
It is not an inferirority complex to suggest what is exactly written in our holy books; that is Hinduism.
I am very sorry to see so many Hindus here have no idea about their religion. Try to read your holy books, rather than wasting time in endless debates. It is no surprise that the Christians or Muslims make jokes about you as you have no idea about your own religion.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Sanatan Dharma will certainly die if more and more Hindus follow what Pairambir, Satya, Hello etc are saying. It will not only die, it is dead already in Britain as the British Hindus are mostly like them.
It is obvious from your comments that you have no knowledge of Sanatan Dharma and you have never read even about Sanskrit Philosophy.
here is some evidences from what you people wrote:
1) “Charvak is a Rishi”: For your information Charvak Lokyatika is a school of thought in Ancient Philosophy. Kapil and Brihaspati were the main authors of that materialistic philosophy, about 2500 years before Karl Marx or Hegel.
2) ” Where in Rig Veda, Brahman was mentioned”: Obviously you have never seen even the Rig Veda.
With these type of followers Hinduism does not need enemies.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“It is not an inferirority complex to suggest what is exactly written in our holy books; that is Hinduism”
you cymbal banging losers are the ones that have a created an aritifical montheism because of your inferiority complex. i know u secretly wish to be white and xtian, but dont lay out your frustrations and nonsense for us.
there are no similarities except for the ones that you and moron have manufactured and other useless losers like prabhupada and dayanada.
no wonder ISKCON conners worship jesus and mohammed.
go ahead a.moron, if you’re so sure where in rig veda is brahman mentioned? im waiting for you to educate me since i dont know nething. instead of trying to be clever lookng like a moron, why dont you just cite the verse?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:28 am
“With these type of followers Hinduism does not need enemies.”
says the loser who is married to orthodox xtian european and worships jesus.
you’re the epitome of self-hatred. shunning traditions of hinduism like saivism n then in turn sucking jesus lund.
ppl like you need to be cannon foddered for slave labor in concentration camps.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
If you think it is Moronic to read Rig Veda, Upanishad and Bhagwat Gita, you are not a Hindu ( Sanatan Dharma I mean) at all.
Brahman is mentioned in Rig Veda ( 6-1-106-7) and in Sam Veda ( 10-14-4-4) and in the Mimamsa and Utriya Brahman ( explanations of Vedas), in Changdoga Upanishad and in Bhagwat Gita. Sri Kishna said, ” I am the abode of the Brahman”.
According to the theory of creation, as given in the Rig Veda, the ONE is the sole creator of everything ( 10-129 -2)
” Then was not non-existent nor existent; there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. The ONE, breathless breathed by its own nature; apart from it was nothing whatsoever…..HE formed it all. WHOSE eye controls this world.”
“He is ONE Brahma, The Creator of the cosmos, Who pervades and protects, And enlightens all beings, He is ONE Supreme Entity, Whom sages call by various names, Such as Indra, the glorious, Mitra, the benign friend, Varuna, the greatest, the noblest, Agni, the resplendent, the bright, Yama, the dispenser of justice, Matarishwa, the almighty” (Rig Veda, 1-164-46).
From Bhagwat Gita:
“I am the one source of all; the evolution of all comes from me” (Ch 10, verse
Brahman is the supreme, the eternal”(Ch 8, Verse 3); “In this universes there is nothing higher than I.” (Ch 7, Verse 7)
” It is Brahman, begining less, supreme; beyond what is and beyond what is not” (Ch 13, verse 12)”
“He who knows I am beginning less, unborn, the Lord of all the universes, this mortal is free from delusion and from all evils he is free” (Ch 10, verse 3)”
“I am the abode of Brahman, the never-failing fountain of everlasting life” (Ch 14, verse 27)
Sri Aurobindo: “Indian polytheism is not the popular polytheism of ancient Europe; for here (in India) the worshipper of many Gods still knows that all his divinities are forms, names, personalities and powers of the ONE; his gods proceed from the ONE Purusha, his goddesses are energies of the ONE divine Force.” (Foundations of Indian Culture, p. 135).
February 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I can see that hello has well followed the teachings of jesus and shows love in his/her heart. Yet another great disciple of a poor teacher.
hell-o. critical thinking should be targeted at the fallacies in one’s own thinking first. That is why so many former christian nations became secular. Perhaps you are working on that.
Rg Veda 10.9: (re Purusha) Brahman was his mouth…
Chandogya Upanishad (VI -2-3) says, ”The universe comes out of Brahman and will return to Brahman, verily, all is Brahman.”
Consciousness is Brahman (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rg Veda)
This Self is Brahman (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda)
.
.
.
hariaum
February 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
hello A Moron,
I do not understand the need to increase your b.p. if I write something, which as per you is stupid. Fine, if what I write is stupid, from your explanations, if it sounds meaningful, then may be I will learn something- wont I ? And that is the objective of this conversation. is it not?
Veda and Vedanta are two parts of the same topic - which needs to be understood by us. Veda to accomplish the desires - purushartha and Vedanta to get the knowledge and understanding of “Aham Brahma Asmi “.
What is important is to learn, understand and know which leads us towards
“MoKsha ” = liberation - liberation from the ignorance that ” I am inadequate ” to ” I am infinite ” . But that understanding takes a lot of learning. And when one understands that, one ” Knows” that, then what more is needed? That is why I ventured to state that ” ultimately ” it leads to ” atheism “. May be I am wrong, but my feeling is that we have done less studies on Carvaka and others. We are trying to find out more on that and we have no doubt that if not us, the future generations will find out.
And finally, we need not be afraid of anything to Dharma because Dharma means understanding and wisdom. And the other side of Dharma is only IGNORANCE. Ignorance can cause many problems including a thinking that Dharma will ” die ” etc. That is why education is the most important tool for Hinduism to spread. One who knows the Hinduism, one who knows Sanatana Dharma will never leave that. The ones who has “mis”understanding of that only has problems.
Pardon me for - may be - ill educated thoughts. Most welcome to correct me if explained rationally, logically etc
namaskaram
February 7th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
i asked for direct quotations, i see you have provided only one, and even that concerns purusha, the cosmic being and not brahman directly. even the concept of an all-pervasive, impersonal being is found only in the youngest section of the rig veda. the bulk of the RV consists of hymns in praise of the rig vedic deities, clearly indicating that hindus have always been a polytheistic people. why are you quoting upanishads?? they are only mystical contemplations of the vedas, not the vedas themselves.
“According to these Holy books Sanatan Dharma cannot be anything but Monotheistic, as it accepts only ONE creator Brahman, only ONE source of all.”
and since when did brahman become singular?
February 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Brahman is always Singular because of the Theory of Creation as given in the Rig Veda ( 10-129-2) which says clearly The ONE has created all universes ( not only our universe) and every matter( Prakiti or nature) out of his meditation.
It also says all Devas and Devis ( not to be confused with greek concept of Gods and Godesses, we do not have these) were created after that. Thus Devas and Devis are nothing but very powerful agents( or Angels) of the Brahman, which is also justified by Purans. Thus, Devas and Devis are not independently created on their own ( as in the Greek religion) but they derive their powers from the Brahman.
In Rig Veda Indra-Varun-Agni all were described in singular terms as if one person have different names. Thus, these are all came from ONE source. That is the reason Sri Krishna said, “I am the ONE source of all” in Bhagwat Gita. That source is Brahman.
Brahman was mentioned in all Vedas and Brahmans and Mimansa and particularly in Upanisads.
Brahman has different names and expressions. Purusha is one such powerful expression of Brahman. Purushas created the humans of four different types from different parts of his body.
Who is CHARVAK? Tell me. Which books he wrote????
February 8th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Christian and Islamic spiritualities their full result may have to obtain in an afterlife this not in case of Hindus spirituality but obtainable in this life only as existential reality and as self evident.
May you realized that
AUM
(A -Waking state U Dreaming state M deep sleep state Silence fourth state)
Our entire life can be summarized in one sound symbol –AUM)
February 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
So when you read Purusha is that a singular?
When the upanisads say paratman is brahman is that singular?
Is not vedanta a part of veda?
Stop being silly.
Ask really deep questions:
Is Truth jealous?
Can Truth and inifiite Love condemn things to eternal damnation?
Can there be a jesus, a satan, a gabriel… and yet the religion be called monotheist?
Can all people bow to a stone in Mecca and claim not to be idolaters?
Is god so stupid that he forgot to send a savior to his ill formed creation until 4 billions after he started it?
Who is dumber: adam for not challenging a god who nasty or eve for challenging a god that wants to withold knowledge and immortality from man because of his own inferiority complex? Or the god that couldn’t quite make a perfect creation?
Why does god need to prove anything to satan (job)?
Now deeper:
how do you pick between your own belief of what god is and what god is?
If you are the child of god then what do you think of a god that says you are not - there is only one?
If your scripture says hold no gods before me, is that not an affirmation of a plurality of gods?
What do you think monotheism is? Is it the one name you call god? or is it that the singularity of Purusha, Brahman, Rama, Narayana, natraja, Maha devi is the fundamental truth beyond simple human word games? (and present throughout the scriptures of hinduism long before the monothink religions even formed)
Are you a seeker of truth or just looking for another word to replace one logos for another? Is god Satyam or word?
as to the vedas: there are many more referrances to the one unity of reality. Please do explore. (if you want to open your soul a bit more, read Heradotus, Pythagorus, Aurelius, the Hermetics, St John of the cross, of ein sof, etc. - you will see that the truth is One, the wise call it by many names; - oh wait I think that is a vedic saying. not from the vedas but I believe equally true: fools think it can have only one name)
hariaum
February 9th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“Is not vedanta a part of veda?
Stop being silly.”
you blind loser, i specifically said rig veda. stop quoting from what was a subsequent philosophical development within hinduism and passing it off as rigvedic. the principal vedantic works were all later works, that were ascribed to the various vedas. you morons cant even produce exactly what i asked for without side winding and misquoting. can’t even produce the
word brahman, you have to quote something about purusha and then affix (more like forcefully assert) the concept of brahman upon it. the hymn of purusha is found in the 10th book, the youngest book of the rigveda. if the rishis had wanted to, they would have composed hymns of purusha and brahman throughout the rigveda, yet there are 250 something hymns dedicated to indra and hundreds to agni and other devas.
“Thus Devas and Devis are nothing but very powerful agents( or Angels) of the Brahman, which is also justified by Purans. ”
here is the most glaring example of a.moron’s inferiority complex. he is so ashamed of being hindu that he has to incorporate biblicial, semitic concepts such as angels into hinduism. what next a.moron, are there any jinn we have to watch out for? do have to start clipping our dicks as part of our covenant with the lord?
“That is the reason Sri Krishna said, “I am the ONE source of all” in Bhagwat Gita.”
lets see what krishna really said -
“I am the original generating causes of all causes, everything emanates from me, comprehending this the spiritually intelligent endowed with devotional sentiments become devoted unto me.”
“I” and “me” are pronouns that denote singularity, but within this context they refer to the infinite brahman, the brahman that is above and beyond being assigned something so immature and childish such as a numerical character.
seems like a.moron acquires all his nonsense from this site -
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_070505.htm
“Who is CHARVAK? Tell me. Which books he wrote????”
i never said charvaka was a person, you gonna keep repeating this like a broken record? get back to worshiping jesus and banging cymbals, you stupid iskcon CONNER clown.
oh btw, bhagavat gita is a text which commands total authority among vaishnavaites, however there are hundreds of millions of saivaites who don’t have to regard it as the culmination of all things hindu and many who don’t believe in the concept of avatars. so stop quoting it like its some ultimate authority. because it ain’t.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
If God as one or mono there is possibilities of regression then infinity
Thus it was call non dual and freedom of choice given to name God as ideal Now we have thousand and this Gods or ideals is growing as per choice, a very poetic style. In this ways all level of people has fun in a prayerful manner.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:58 am
So hello, are you in need of a word to worship? Isn’t prajapati exactly the principle of Brahman?
I don’t see you answering the problems with the bible that was written 300 years after ceaser, and the torah 90 years after ceaser.
If want the singularity in the rg vedas, read the descriptions of prajapati. It is not at all true that the upanisads were added on. The vedas and the vedanta are one. The Rg has to do with hymns, the athar with action, and the upanisads with intellectual commentary. If you view the Vedas as christians and muslims want, then there is a disparate collection of the historical gods of humanity. If you read it realizing that the vedas expect you to know the puranas, the bhagvatas, and the upanishads while learning to recite specific verses, you understand that the meaning underlies the whole of the Rg. etc. Perhaps you worship names so much that you will bend over backwards to deny this, but that is your lack of intellectual rigor.
Certainly if you ask where jesus did any real healing you won’t find it in the bible. Those miracles were certainly primitive minds dealing with simple health problems that resolve themselves.
btw the Gita says: any ishvara you want is accepted as faith by Krishna. I suppose you don’t want to interpert that as it is but transform it into some other nonsense.
You didn’t answer the questions I posed. I suppose you are afraid to answer them. Perhaps it is the loser calling others losers because of an inferiority complex. Your empty faith seems just that.
hariaum
February 11th, 2008 at 7:22 am
“He is ONE Supreme Entity, Whom sages call by various names” (Rig Veda, 1-164-46).
” O Brahamanaspati, make him who presses Soma glorious” ( Rig Veda, 1-18-1)
” O Brahmanspati. God Serving Men Stand up, we pray to you”. ( Rig B\Veda, Book 1, Hymn XL, verse 1)
” HE formed it all. WHOSE eye controls this world.”( Rig Veda, 10-129 -2)
” The Brahman who accepts the prayer” ( Rig Veda, Book VI, Hymn XLV, Verse 7)
There are many many verses in other Vedas, Brahman literature( Satpat Brhaman, Uttrireya Brahman ) and Upanishad and in Bhagwat Gita.
It is not important what the followers of Sivas thinks, they are the shame of Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma.
All other Monotheists religions have followed Hinduism but those are not perfect and they came later than Hinduism . Hinduism is the perfect and the oldest Monotheist religion.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I don’t believe Shaivites are at all off the mark. Tiruvalluvar is beautiful in his poems and insight. The Shaivite Sadhus I’ve come accross are wonderful spiritual persons. Sankara is amazing. The Natraja of Shaivism is a fantastic way to explain evolution and iterative creation with the unity of duality at its center. I think it would be a shame to lose such inspiration from our traditions and the learning humanity has gained.
In the past Shaivites and Vaishnavites argued. We will continue to argue the details but the unity of Truth is present (immanent) in each tradition and transcendent to all traditions.
hariaum
February 11th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“It is not important what the followers of Sivas thinks, they are the shame of Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma.”
The shame of Sanatana Dharma are cymbal banging inferiority complexed monotheist freaks like you, now go back to your little hole.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
a.moron still can’t explain why the bulk of the verses concentrate upon extolling the virtues and exploits of indra, agni, and other devas (”angels” according to you)
wow, do you even know who brahmanaspati is? brahmanaspati is another name of brihaspati who happens to be the celestial priest of the devas. it has nothing to do with brahman. the verse you quoted addresses brihaspati as a god, which is obvious because that verse is dedicated to him.
“It is not important what the followers of Sivas thinks, they are the shame of Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma.”
well, statements like these typify your character, which im sure is exemplified by cowardice, servility, and ignorance. if it wasn’t for shaivas and shaktas, there would be no “sanatana dharma” and you would be bending over for allah right now.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:04 am
“You didn’t answer the questions I posed. I suppose you are afraid to answer them. Perhaps it is the loser calling others losers because of an inferiority complex.”
1. your questions are empty and incomprehensible. just like all the posts you make. if you have questions about xtian or muslim beliefs, then go ask them. they have explanations for everything.
2. i tend to call a spade a spade, which is why i called you a loser because your posts embody the spirit of a true born loser.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Hello:
Even a person with elementary knowledge of Sanskrit will know that Brahamanspati and Brihaspati cannot be the same person because these are two different words.
“He is One Supreme Entity, Whom sages call by various names, Such as Indra, the glorious, Mitra, the benign friend, Varuna, the greatest, the noblest, Agni, the resplendent, the bright, Yama, the dispenser of justice, Matarishwa, the almighty” (Rig Veda, Book 1, Hymn 164, Verse 46).
“The Devas are later than this world’s production.” Rig Veda, Book X, verse 129
“ Worship the Vasus, Agni. Here the Rudras, the Adityas, all Who spring from Manu.” (Rig Veda, Book 1, Hymn XLV, verse 1)
” Brahman is the supreme, the eternal”(Bhagwat Gita, Ch 8, Verse 3)
February 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Ok. So now we have some referrance to Brahman in the Rg. We also have indications of singularity of the supreme being in the Rg.
I certainly agree that Shaivites are a very important part of Hinduism as is Vaishnavite and Devi puja, etc.
But what is hello looking for? The Gita says we should look beyond the vedas. It seems that Hello agrees. The Gita says any ishthadeva is acceptable to Krishna as appropriate faith. Indeed he extols Arjuna to go and worship his families ishtadevata and in doing so he will come to Krishna. It seems that Hello want to have his own ishtadevata which does not at all disagree. hello refers to I and me as personal pronouns. This is so. But the focus becomes on the word rather than the meaning. Whenever Arjuna asks who are you, Krishna does not say I am Vishnu or narayana or whatever name you want, rather Krishna goes to great detail on how his “I” is a series of properties of the supreme being and that his “I” is the supreme being - that Krishna is merely a name for this avatar, that his “I and Me” is beyond name and form - do not simply worship Krishna because he says so but because he is so. (by the way, I don’t recall him saying bow down to me and give me flowers, rather he says live without attachement and with renunciation which is what Shiva demonstrates.)In Vasista Yoga, there is a discussion with Kaka Bushundi who reflects that at one universe or another, Vishnu, Mahadeva, and Brahma can alter the roles they play in the universe - it is not the name but the reality that is important.
Arguing over name is what the monothink christo-islamists need to avoid talking about truth. Let the Truth unite us.
hariaum
February 13th, 2008 at 6:28 am
last sentence: Arguing over name is what the monothink christo-islamists do, they need to avoid talking about truth. Let the Truth unite us.
sorry for the typo
hariaum
February 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Namaste,
1. I would like Shri Vāmadeva Śāstrī ji to use the term “Ahimsa” and not “non-violence”. The word non-violence does not encapsulate all the aspects of the word ahimsa, as ahimsa is broad and comprehensive concept.
2. Non-violence is opposite of violence. Violence can be: 1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing; 2. Abusive or unjust exercise of power, and so on.
Ahimsa is opposite of himsa. Himsa is more than violence (as mentioned above). Thinking bad about others, jelousy against others, etc are himsa. As Dalai Lama rightly said, even thinking to do physical harm to someone is himsa.
3. ‘Ahimsa parama dharma’ is more than ‘non-violence is supreme dharma’.
Many sanskrit terms are so broad and comprehensive, no alternate words can be find in other languages, e.g. Dharma (is more than religion), Ahimsa (is more than non-violence) etc. So, they must be used as they are (like Dharma, Ahimsa, Yoga, Moksha, Avatar, Acharya…).
4. I appreciate the great works of Shri Sastri ji. He is surely one beautiful minds among the western followers of Sanatan Dharma.
Bharat
====
February 17th, 2008 at 6:52 am
‘Ahimsa Param Dharma’ is Buddhism, not Hinduism. Hinduism does not promote violence but ‘passive resistence’ is not Hinduism either. In that case Bhagwat Gita, Ramayana or Mahabharata cannot be there at all.
Imagine Lord Rama or Arjuna doing Satyagraha in front of Ravana or Durjyadhan or Sri Krishna negotiating with Kansa in a Round Table Conference. That is not Hinduism. According to Sri Aurobindo Gandhi was not a Hindu but a Christian.
In Hinduism Khatriyas played a great role of fighting against evil. Dalai Lama could not save his country Tobet from the evil Chinese. Gandhi could not save millions of his people from Jinnah.