Category: Dharma (spiritual knowledge and acts)

The Democratic Process

In Governing the Vedic Associations

 

Here I am talking about the Vedic, generally but incorrectly known as Hindu, associations of the common Vedic people.

 

The democratic process of votes does not consider how spiritually advanced the voters are, or how much the voters understand and practice dharma. Our Dharma is given in the scriptures like Bhagavad gita, Srimad Bhagvatam, etc. The original authority of dharma is the Vedas, and its summary Gita. In religious matters we consider, or ought to consider, the Vedic gurus, those sadhus Hindus that seriously practice dharma, and shastras as our guide. These three (guru, sadhu, shastra) provide a system of checks and balances when a difficult decision has to be made in accordance with dharma. Now, if the voters do not care any of these three and just vote based upon their own personal choices, then their vote will not be the best from dharma point of view.

 

A majority could not be the wisest or most seriously dharma practicing group. The nature is such that very wise and knowledgeable people are few, and very unintelligent and ignorant people are also very few. The rest of the people who are the majority fall in between. So, a society progresses well when it listens and follows to those few that know better than the common people.

 

Most of the Vedic associations’ mission includes retaining the freedom

 

1. to know the Vedic dharma and culture as it really is from real Vedic gurus, sadhus and shastras without concocting one’s own opinion.
2. to practice the Vedic dharma and culture correctly
3. to pass on the Vedic dharma and culture to the new generation in particular, and to the interested people of the world in general.
4. to own and manage a functioning temple facility as the center for dharmic and cultural activities and spiritual education for the society.

 

So, considering the mission, it is obvious that the when the governing body has people who are serious about practicing dharma, and who are proud of their Vedic dharma and culture, then the association progresses faster spiritually. If those who are not serious about dharma and culture become the leaders using the flaw of the democratic process, then the association will not be able to conduct its mission effectively. When that happens, then those few who are serious about dharma and culture will need to seek grass root support to get the right people in the governing body.

 

The other strategy is that the goal or vision or ideal should be the highest/ purest, but the implementation is done with a series of small attainable tasks and actions. In Vedic culture any person has equal opportunity to progress spiritually no matter what high or low level one is. So, no Vedic association should shy away from setting very high noble dharmic standards for practicing dharma as given in shastras, gurus and sadhus.

 

svRSy cahm! ùid siÚivòae mÄ> Sm&itrœ }anm! Apaehnm! c,

vedEs! c svERrœ Ahm! @v ve*ae veda<t-k«dœ ved-ivdœ @v cahm!. -Gita 15.15

 

sarvasya chaaham hR^idi sannivishhTo . mattaH smR^itir GYaanam apohanam cha ..
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo . vedaa.nta-kR^id veda-vid eva chaaham .. Gita 15.15

TRANSLATION:  I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. –Gita 15.15

Bottom line: Always make sure the democratic process does not retard or neglect the spiritual progress of the Vedic society. Know who cares for dharma, who understands it well, and who is willing to help. Then put him or her in the governing body. Support him or her when needed.

 

Jai sri krishna!

-sv

 

बाबा रामदेवजी ।

मेरा आपको दंडवत् प्रणाम ।

मे आपको एक सुचन और प्रार्थना करता हु कि आप एक खास प्रकारका गलेका हार या हाथमे पहेनने का band हजारों कि संख्या मे बनवा लिजिये जो कपडे का होवे या नायलोन जैस होवे । उस पर बडे अक्षर मे लिख होना चाहिये  –  “॥मैने रुश्वत लेना देना सदन्तर छोड दिया है॥”  जब कोई व्यक्ति आपकी सभामे आकर जाहिर करे कि उसने रुश्वत लेना देना छोड दिया है तो आप ये खास बनाया हुवा हार या band उसको अपने हाथ से पहना कर उसको धन्यवाद दे । ऐसा होगा तो सभामे सबको रुश्वत छोडने का उत्साह मिलगा। बस यहि सुचना और प्रार्थना है ।

जय श्री कृष्ण॥

– सुरेश व्यास

बाबा रामदेवजी के साथीओं और सहयोगीओं  ।

प्रणाम।

आपकी संख्या लाखोंकी है और हम सब भ्रष्टाचार मिटाना चाहते है। तो मै एक सुचन करता हुं कि आप रुश्वत लेना देना आज से हि छोड दे। अगर छोड हि दीया है तो बहुत अच्छा। मेरा आपको धयवाद ।  फिर आप बाबा रामदेव की सभा मे सबके सुनते हुवे जाहिर करे कि आपने रुश्वत लेना देना बिलकुल छोड दिया है। ये जानकर बाबा और सब सभासद खुश होंगे। आपको बहुत धयवाद मिलेंगे , और दूसरों को भी रुश्वत लेना देना बन्ध करने की प्रेरणा मिलेगी॥

जय श्री कृष्ण॥

– सुरेश व्यास

Origin of Sanatan Dharma:

sri bhagavan uvacha:

imam vivisvate yogam proktavanahamavyayam
vivisvan manav praha manurikshvakave ‘bravit

The Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krsna, said:  I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikshvaku.

Purport:  Herein we find the history of the Bhagavad -gita traced from a remote time when it was delivered to the royal order of all planets beginning from the sun planet. The kings of all planets are especially meant for the protection of the inhabitants, and therefore the royal order should understand the science of Bhagavad-gita in order to be able to rule the citizens and protect them from material bondage to lust. Human life is meant for cultivation of spiritual knowledge, in eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the executive heads of all states and all planets are obliged to impart this lesson to the citizens by education, culture and devotion. In other words, the executive heads of all states are intended to spread the science of Krsna consciousness so that the people may take advantage of this great science and pursue a successful path, utilizing the opportunity of the human form of life.
In this millennium, the sun-god is known as Vivasvan, the king of the sun, which is the origin of all planets within the solar system. In the Brahma-samhita  (5.52) it is stated:

“Let me worship,” Lord Brahma said, “the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Govinda [Krsna], who is the original person and under whose order the sun, which is the king of all planets, is assuming immense power and heat. The sun represents the eye of the Lord and traverses its orbit in obedience to His order.”

The sun is the king of the planets, and the sun-god (at present of the name Vivasvan) rules the sun planet, which is controlling all other planets by supplying heat and light. He is rotating under the order of Krsna, and Lord Krsna originally made Vivasvan His first disciple to understand the science of Bhagavad-gita. The Gita is not, therefore, a speculative treatise for the insignificant mundane scholar but is a standard book of knowledge coming down from time immemorial.

In the Mahabharata (santi-parva 348.51-52)  we can trace out the history of the Gita as follows:  “In the beginning of the millennium known as Treta-yuga this science of the relationship with the Supreme was delivered by Vivasvan to Manu. Manu, being the father of mankind, gave it to his son Maharaja Ikshvaku, the king of this earth planet and forefather of the Raghu dynasty, in which Lord Ramachandra appeared.” Therefore, Bhagavad-gita existed in human society from the time of Maharaja Ikshvaku.

At the present moment we have just passed through five thousand years of the Kali-yuga, which lasts 432,000 years. Before this there was Dvapara-yuga (800,000 years), and before that there was Treta-yuga (1,200,000 years). Thus, some 2,005,000 years ago, Manu spoke the Bhagavad-gita to his disciple and son Maharaja Ikshvaku, the king of this planet earth. The age of the current Manu is calculated to last some 305,300,000 years, of which 120,400,000 have passed. Accepting that before the birth of Manu the Gita was spoken by the Lord to His disciple the sun-god Vivasvan, a rough estimate is that the Gita was spoken at least 120,400,000 years ago; and in human society it has been extant for two million years. It was re-spoken by the Lord again to Arjuna about five thousand years ago. That is the rough estimate of the history of the Gita according to the Gita itself and according to the version of the speaker, Lord Sri Krsna. It was spoken to the sun-god Vivasvan because he is also a kshatriya and is the father of all kshatriyas who are descendants of the sun-god, or the surya-vamsi kshatriyas. Because Bhagavad-gita is as good as the Vedas, being spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, this knowledge is apaurusheya, Superhuman. Since the Vedic instructions are accepted as they are, without human interpretation, the Gita must therefore be accepted without mundane interpretation. The mundane wranglers may speculate on the Gita in their own ways, but that is not Bhagavad-gita  as it is. Therefore, Bhagavad-gita has to be accepted as it is from the disciplic succession, and it is described herein that the Lord spoke to the sun-god, the sun-god spoke to his son Manu, and Manu spoke to his son Ikshvaku.
[From Bhagavad Gita As It Is by Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Verse 4.1].

kadachid dhyayatah srastur
veda asams chatur-mukhat
katham srakshyamy aham lokan
samavetan yatha pura

Once upon a time, when Brahma was thinking of how to create the worlds as in the previous millenniums, the four Vedas, which contain all varieties of knowledge, became manifest from his four mouths.

Purport:  …The Vedas are the source of all knowledge, and they were first revealed to Brahma by the Supreme Personality of Godhead while Brahma was thinking of re-creating the material world.  Brahma is powerful by dint of his devotional service unto the Lord….
[From Srimad Bhagavatam, 3.12.34, by Sri A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada]

Yoga Sutra of Patanjali

Source:  http://www.santosha.com/philosophy/samadhi-pada.html

Copyright © 1998 Yoga Anand Ashram

Chapter 1: Samadhi Pada

 

1.  Now instruction in yoga.  .

atha yoga-anusanam

 

2.  Yoga is the restraint of fluctuations of he mind.

yogas citta-vrtti-nirodhah

 

3.  Then there is abiding in the seer’s own form.

tada drastuh sva rupe’vasthanam

 

4.  Ignorance is the origin of the others, whether dormant, attenuated, interrupted, or fully

active.

avidya ksetram uttaresam prasupta-tanu-vicchina-udaranam

 

5.  At other times it takes the form of the fluctuations.

vrtti-sarupyam itarata

 

6.  Valid cognition, error, conceptualization, sleep, and memory.

pramana-viparyaya-vikalpa-nidra-smrtayah

 

7.  Valid cognitions are perception, inference, and valid testimoy.

pratyaksa-anumana-agamah pramnani

 

8.  Error is false knowledge, without foundation.

viparyayo mithya-jnanam atad rupa-pratistham

 

9.  Conceptualization is the result of words and ideas empty of object.

sabda-jnananupati vastu-sunyo vikalpah

 

10.  The sleep fluctuation is based on the intention of nonbecoming.

abhava-pratyaya-alambana vrtti nidra

 

11.  Memory is the recollection of an experienced condition.

anubhuta-visaya-asampramosah smrtih

 

12.  Through practice and dispassion arises restraint.

abhyasa-vairagyabhyam tan nirodhah

 

13.  Effort in remaining there is practice.

tatra sthitau yatno’bhyasah

 

14.  But that is firmlt situated when carefully attended to for a long time without interuption.

sa tu dirgha-kala-nairantarya-satkara-asevito drdha-bhumih sah

 

15.  Dispassion is the knowledge of mastery in one who thirsts not for conditions seen or heard.

drsta-anusravika-visaya-vitrsnasya vasikara-samjna vairagyam

 

16.  That highest (dispassion) – thirstlessness for the gunas – [proceeds] from

the discernment of purusa.

tat param purusa-khyater buna-vaitrsnyam

 

17.  Samprajnata [arises] from association with discursive thought, reflection, bliss, and

I-am-ness.

virtaka-vicara-ananda-asmita-anugamat-samprajnatah

 

18.  The other (state)* has samskara only and is proceded by practice and the intention of  cessation.

viram-pratyaya-abhyasa-purvah samskara-seso’nyah

*Referred to by Vyasa as “asamprajnata samadhi.  ”

 

19.  Of the one who are absorbed inprakriti and discarnate, [there is] an intention of becoming.

bhava-pratyayo videha-prakrti-layanam

 

20.  Of the others it is proceded by faith, energy, mindfulness, samadhi, and wisdom.

sraddha-virya-smrti-samadhi-prajna-purvaka itaresam

 

21.  The strongly intense ones are near.

tivra-samveganam asannah

 

22.  Hence the distinctions of mild, moderate, and ardent.

mrdu-madhya-adhimatratvat tato’pi visesah

 

23.  Or from dedication to Isvara.

isvara-pranidhanad va

 

24.  Isvara is a distinct purusa untouched by afflictions, actions, fruitions, or their residue.

klesa-karma-vipakasayair aparamrstah purusa-visesa isvarah

 

25.  There the seed of omnisccience is unsurpassed.

tatra niratisayam sarva-jna-bijam

 

26.  Due to its being unlimited by time, it is the teacher of the prior ones.

Purvesam api guruh kalena anavacchedat

 

27.  Its expression is pranava (OM).

tasya vacakah pranavah

 

28.  Repetition of it and realization of its purpose [should be made].

taj japas tad artha-bhavanam

 

29.  Thus inward consciousness is attained and obstacles do not arise.

tatah pratyak-cetana-adhigamo’py-antaraya-abhavas-ca

 

30.  These obstacles, distractions of the mind, are: sickness, dullness, doubt, carelessness, laziness, sense addiction, false view, non-attainment of a stage, and instability.  .

vyadhi-styana-samsaya-pramada-alasya-avirati-bhranti-

darsana-alabdha-bhumikatva-anavasthitatvani citta-viksepas

te’ntarayah

 

31.  A dissatisfied, despairing body and unsteady inhalation and exhalation accompany the distractions.

duhkha-daurmanasya-angam ejayatva-svasa-prasvasa

viksepa-sahabhuva

 

32.  For the purpose of countering them, [there is] the practice of one thing (eka-tattva).

tat pratisedha-artham eka-tattva-abhyasa

 

33.  Clarification of the mind [results] from the cultivation of friendliness, compassion,

happiness, and equanimity in conditions of pleasure, dissatisfaction, merit, and absence of merit, respectively.

maitri-karuna-mudita-upeksanam suhkha-duhkha-

punya-apunya-visayanam bhavanatas citta prasadanam

 

34.  Or by expulsion and retention of breath.

pracchardana-vidharanabhyam va pranasya

 

35.  Or steady binding of the mind-organ arises in activity of involvement with a condition.

visaya-vati va pravrttir utpanna manasah sthiti-nibandani

 

36.  Or having sorrowless illumination.

visoka va jyotismati

 

37.  Or [on a] mind in a condition free from attachment.

vita-raga-visayam va cittam

 

38.  Or resting on knowledge [derived] from dream or sleep.

svapna-nidra-jnana-alambanam va

 

39.  Or from meditation as desired.

yatha abhimata-dhyanad-va

 

40.  Mastery of it [extends] from the smallest to the greatest.

parama-anu-parama-mahattva-anto’sya vasikarah

 

41.  [The accomplished mind] of diminished fluctuations, like a precious (or clear) jewel

assuming the color of any near object, has unity among grasper, grasping, and grasped.

ksina-vrtter abhijatasya-iva maner grahitr-grahana-grahyesu

tat-sth-tad-anjanata samapattih

 

42.  Svatikara unity is the commingling by conceptualization of word, purpose, and knowledge.

tatra sabda-artha-jnana-vikalpaih samkirna savitarka sama pattih

 

43.  Nirvitarka is when memory is purified, as if emptied of its own form, and the object alone shines forth.

smrti-parisuddhau sva rupa-sunya-iva-artha-matra-nirbhasa nirvitarka

 

44.  Similarly explained are sarvicara and nirvicara which are subtle conditions.

etayaiva savicara nirvicara ca suksma-visaya vyakhyata

 

45.  And the subtle condition terminates in the undesignated.

suksma-visayatvam ca aliinga-paryavasanam

 

46.  These are samadhi with seed.

ta eva sabijah samadhi

 

47.  In skill with nirvicara, clarity of authentica self arises.

nirvicara-vaisaradye’dhyatama-prasadh

 

48.  There the wisdom is rtam-bearing (or truth-bearing).

rtam bhara tatra prajna

 

49.  Its condition is different from heard or inferred knowledge because of its distinct purpose.

sruta-anumana-prajnabhyam anya-visaya visesa-arthatvat

 

50.  The samskara born of it obstructs other samskaras.

taj-jah samskaro’nya-samskara-pratibandhi

 

51.  Whith even that restricted, everything is restricted and that is seedless samadhi.

tasya api nirodhe sarva-nirodhan nirbijah samadhih

 

Chapter 2:  Sadhana Pada

 

 

1.  Austerity, self-study, and dedication to Isvara are kriya yoga.

tapah-svadhyaya-isvara-pranidhanani kriya-yoga

 

2.  [It is] for the purposes of cultivating samadhi and attenuating the afflictions.

samadhi-bhavana-artha klesa-tanu-karana-arthas ca

 

3.  Ignorance, I-am-ness, attraction, aversion, and desire for continuity are the afflictions.

avidya-asmita-raga-dvesa-abhinivesa

 

4.  Ignorance is the origin of the others, whether dormant, attenuated, interrupted, or fully

active.

avidya ksetram uttaresam prasupta-tanu-vicchina-udaranam

 

5.  Ignorance is seeing the noneternal as eternal, the impure as pure, dissatisfaction as

pleasure, and nonself as self.

anitya-asuci-duhkha-anatmasu-nitya-suci-sukha-atma-khyatir avidya

 

 

6.  I-am-ness is when the two powers of seer and seen [appear]

as a single self.

drg-darsana-saktyor eka atmata iva asmita

 

7.  Attraction is clingling to pleasure.

sukha-anusayi ragah

 

8.  Aversion is clinging to dissatisfaction.

duhkha-anusayi ragah

 

9.  Desire for continuity, arising even among the wise, is sustained by self-inclination.

svarasa-vahi viduso’ pi tatha rudho’ bhinivesa

 

10.  These subtle ones are to be avoided by a return to the origin.

te pratiprasava-heya suksmah

 

 

11.  Their fluctuations are to be voided by meditation.

dhyana-heyas tad-vrttayah

 

12.  The residue of karma, rooted in affliction, is felt in seen or unseen existence.

klesa-mulah karma-asayo drsta-adrsta-janma-vedaniyah

 

13.  While the root existence, there is fruition of it as birth, duration, and experience.

sati mule tad-vipako jaty-ayur-bhogah

 

14.  These fruits are joyful or painful according to whether the causes are meritorious or

demeritorious.

te hlada-paritapa-phala punya-apunya-hetutvat

15.  For the discriminating one, all is dissatisfaction due to the conflict of the fluctuations of the gunas and by the dissatisfactions due to parinama, sorrow, and samskaras.

parinam-tapa-samskara-duhkhair guna-vrrti-virodhac ca duhkham eva

sarvam vivekinah

 

16.  The dissatisfaction yet to come is to be avoided.

heyam duhkham anagatam

 

17.  The cause of what is to be avoided is the union of seer with the seen.

drastr-drsyayoh samyoga heya-hetuh

 

18.  The seen has the qualities of light, activity, and inertia, consists of the elements and the senses, and has the purposes of experience an liberation.

prakasa-kriya-sthiti-silam bhuta-indriya-atmakam

bhoga-aparvargartham drsyam

 

19.  The distinct, the indistinct, the designator, and the unmaifest are the divisions of the

gunas.

visesa-avisesa-linga-matra-alingani guna-parvani

 

20.  The seer only sees; though pure, it appears intentional.

drastr drsi-matraha suddho’pi pratyaya-anupasyah

 

21.  The nature of the seen is only for the purpose of that (purusa).

tad-artha eva drsyaya-atma

 

22.  When [its] purpose is done, it disappears; otherwise it does not disappear due to being

common to others.

krtaa-artham prati nastam apy anastam tad anya-sadharanatva

 

23.  Union (samyoga) is the cause of apprehending as [one] self-form the two powers of owner and owned.

sva-svami-saktyoh sva-rupa-upalabdhi-hetuh samyogah

 

24.  The cause of it is ignorance.

tasya hetur avidya

 

25.  From its absence, samyoga ceases; [this is] the escape, the isolation from the seen.

tad-abhavat samyoga-abhavo hanam tad-drseh kaivalyam

 

 

26.  The means of escape is unfaltering discriminative discernment.

viveka-khyatir aviplava hanopayah

 

27.  His wisdom to the last stage is sevenfold.

tasya saptadha pranta-bhumih prajna

 

28.  From following the limbs of yoga, on the destruction of impurity there is a light of

knowledge, leading to discriminative discernment.

yoga-anga-anusthanad asuddhi-ksaye jnana-diptir a viveka-kyateh

 

29.  Restraint, observance, postures, control of breath, withdrawal, concentration, meditation, and samadhi are the eight limbs.

yama-niyama-asana-pranayama-pratyahara-dharana-

dhyana-samadhyo stav-angani

 

30.  The restraints are nonviolence, truthfulness, nonstealing, sexual restraint, and

nonpossession.

ahimsa-satya-asteya-brahmacarya-aparigraha yamah

 

31.  When not limited by life-state, place, time, or circumstance in all occasions.

jati-desa-kala-samaya-anavacchinnah sarva-bhauma mahavratam

 

32.  Purity, contentment, austerity, self-study, and dedication to Isvara are the observances.

sasuca-santosha-tapah-svadhyaya-isvara-pranidhanani niyamah

 

33.  When there is bondage due to discursive thought, the cultivation of the opposite [is

prescribed].   vitarka-badhane pratipaksa-bhavanam

 

34.  Discursive thoughts like violence, etc.  , whether done, caused or approved, consisting in lust, anger, or delusion, and whether mild, medium, or intense, have as their endless fruits ***  and ignorance; thus, cultivation of opposites [is prescribed].

vitarka himsa-adayah krta-karita-anumodita

lobha-krodha-moha-purvaka mrdu-madhya-adhimatra

duhkha-ajnana-ananta-phala iti pratipaksa-bhavanam

 

35.  When in the presence of one established in nonviolence, there is the abandonment of hostility.

ahimsa-pratistayam tat-samnidhau vira-tyagah

 

 

36.  When established in truthfulness, [there is] correspondence between action and fruit.

satya-pratisthyam kriya-phala-asrayatvam

 

37.  When established in nonstealing, [whatever is] present is all jewels.

asteya-pratisthyam sarva-ratna-upasthanam

 

38.  When established in sexual restraint, vigor is obtained.

brahmacarya-pratisthayam virya-labhah

 

39.  When steadfast in nonpossession, there is knowledge of “the how” of existence.

aparigraha-sthairye janma-kathamta sambodhah

 

40.  From purity arises dislike of one’s own body and noncontact with others.

saucat sva-anga-jugupsa parair asamsargah

 

41.  And purity of sattva, cheerfulness, onepointedness, mastery of the senses, and fitness for the vision of the self.

sattva-suddhi-saumanasya-eka-agrya-indriya-jaya-atma-

darsana-yogyatvani ca

 

42.  From contentment, unsurpassed happiness is obtained.

samtosad anuttamah sukha-labhah

 

43.  From austerity arises the destruction of impurity and the perfection of the body and the senses.

kaya-indriya-siddhir asuddhi-ksayat tapasah

 

44.  From self-study arises union with the desired diety.

svadhyayad ista-devata-samprayogah

 

45.  Perfection in samadhi [arises] from dedication to Isvara.

samadhi-siddhir isvara-pranidhanat

 

46.  Asana is steadiness and ease.

sthira-sukham asanam

 

47.  From relaxation of effort and endless unity.

prayatna-saithiya-ananta-samapattibhyam

 

48.  Thus, there is no assault by the pairs of opposites.

tato dvandva-anabhighatah

 

49.  Being in this, there is control of the breath, which is cutting off of the motion of inbreath and outbreath.

tasmin sati svasa-prasvasayor gati-viccedah pranayamah

 

50.  Its fluctuations are external, internal, and suppressed; it is observed according to time, place, and number, and becomes long and subtle.

baha-abhyantara-stambha-vrttir desa-kala-samkhyabhih paridrsto

dirgha-suksmah

 

51.  The fourth is withdrawal from external and internal conditions [of breath].

bahya-abhyantara-visaya-aksepi caturthah

 

52.  Thus, the covering of light is dissolved.

tath ksiyate prakasa-avaranam

 

53.  And there is fitness of the mind organ for concentrations.

dharanasu ca yogyatamanasah

 

54.  Withdrawal of the senses is the disengagement from conditions as if in imitation of the own-form of the mind.

sva-visaya-asamprayoge cittasya sva-rupa-anukara iva indriyanam

pratyaharah

 

55.  Then arises utmost command of the senses.

tath parama vasyata indriyanam

 

Chapter 3:  Vibhuti Pada

 

1.  Concentration of the mind is [its] binding to a place.

desa-bandhas cittasya dharana

 

2.  The extension of one intention there, is meditation.

tatra pratyaya-eka-tanata dhyanam

 

3.  When the purpose alone shines forth as if empty of own form, that indeed is samadhi.

tad eva-artha-matra-nirbhasam svarupa-sunyam iva samadhih

 

4.  The unity of these three is samyama.

trayam ekatra samyamah

 

5.  From the mastery of that, the splendor of wisdom.

tad-jayat prajna alokah

 

6.  Its application is in stages.

tasya bhumisu viniyogah

 

7.  These three inner limbs are (distinct) from the prior ones.

trayam-antar-angam purvebhyah

 

8.  These indeed are outer limbs [in regard to] the seedless.

tad api bahir-angam nirbijasya

 

9.  [In regard to] the two samskaras of emergence and restraint, when that of appearance

(emergence) is overpowered, there follows a moment of restraint in the mind; this is the parinama of restraint.

vyutthana-nirodha-samskarayor abhibhava-pradurbhavau nirodha-ksana-citta-anvayo nirodha-parinamah

 

10.  From the samskaraof this there is a calm flow.

tasya prasanta vahita samskarat

 

11.  When there is obstruction of all objectivity and the arising of one-pointedness, there is of the mind the parinama of samadhi.

sarva-arthata-ekagratayoh ksaya-udayau cittasya samadhi-parinamah

 

12.  Hence again, when there is equanimity between arising and quieted intentions, there is the parinama of one-pointedness of the mind.

tatah punah santa-uditau tulya-pratyayau cittasya-ekagrata-parinamah

 

13.  By this are similarly explained the parinamas of state, designation, and dharama amongst the elements and the senses.

etena bhuta-indiyesu dharma-lasana-avastha-parinama vya khyatah

 

14.  The dharma-holder corresponds to the dharma whether quieted, arisen, or undetermined  (past, present, or future).

santa-udita-avyapadesya-dharma-anupati-dharmi

 

15.  The casue of the difference between parinamas is the difference in the succession.

krama-anyatvam parinama-anyatve hetuh

 

16.  From samyama on the threefold parinamas (there is) knowledge of past and future.

parinama-traya-samyamad atita-anagata-jnanam

 

17.  From the overlapping here and there of words, purposes, and intentions, there is

confusion.   From samyama o the distinctions of them, there is knowledge of the (way of)  utterance of all beings.

sabda-artha-pratyayanam itara-itara adhyasat samskaras tat

pravibhaga-samyamat sarva-bhuta-ruta-jnanam

 

18.  From effecting the perception of samskara, there is knowledge of previous births.

samskara-saksat karanat purva-jati-jnanam

 

19.  [Similarly, from perception of another’s] intentions, there is knowledge of another mind.

pratyasya para-citta-jnanam

 

20.  But this is not with support because there is no condition of it in the elements.

na ca tat salambanam tasya avisayi bhutatvat

 

21.  From samyama on the form (rupa) of the body, [there arises] the suspension of the power of what is to be grasped and the disjunction of light and the eye, resulting in concealment.

kaya-rupasamyamat tad grahya-sakti-stambhe caksuh

prakasa-asamyoge antardhanam

 

22.  Karma is either in motion or not in motion.   From samyama on this, or from naturual

phenomena boding misfortune, there is knowledge of death.

sopakramam nirupakramam ca karman tad samyamat aparanta-jnanam

aristebhyahva

 

23.  [By samyama] on friendliness and so forth, (corresponding) powers.

maitri adisu balani

 

24.  [By samyama] on powers, the powers like those of the elephant, and so forth.

balesu hasti-bala-adini

 

25.  Due to the casting of light on a [sense] activity, there is knowledge of the subtle, concealed, and distant.

pravrtti-aloka-nyasat suksma-vyahahita-viprakrsta-jnanam

 

26.  From samyama on the su, [arises] knowledge of the world.

bhuvana-jnanam surye samyamat

 

27.  On the moon, knowledge of the ordering of the stars.

candre tara-vyutha-jnanam

 

28.  On the polar star, knowledge of there movement.

dhruve tad gati-jnanam

 

29.  On the central cakra, knowledge of the ordering of the body.

nabhi-cakre kaya-vyuha-jnanam

 

30.  On the hollow of the throat, cessation of hunger and thirst.

kantha-kupe ksut-pipasa-nivrttih

 

31.  On the tortoise nadi, stability.

kurma-nadyam sthairyam

 

32.  On the light in the head, vision of the perfected ones.   murdha-jyotisi

siddha-darsanam

 

33.  Or from intuition, everything.

pratibhad va sarvam

 

34.  On the heart, understanding of the mind.

hrdaye citta-samvit

 

35.  When there is no distinction of intention between the purusa and the perfect sattva, there is experience for the purpose of the other [purusa]; from samyama on purpose being for the self, there is knowledge of purusa.

sattva-purusayor atyanta-asamkirnayoh pratyaya-avisesah bhogah

para-arthatvat svartha-samyamat purusa-jnanam

 

36.  Hence are born intuitive hearing touching, tasting, and smelling.

tatah pratibha-sravana-vedana-adarsa-asvada-vartah jayante tatah

 

37.  These are impediments to samadhi; in emergence (world production), they are perfections.

te samadhau upasargah vyutthane siddhayah

 

38.  From the relaxation of the cause of bondage and from the preception of the manifestation, there is an entering of the mind into another embodiment.

bandha-karana-saithilyat pracara-samvedanat ca cittasya

para-sarira-avesah

 

39.  From mastery of the upbreath, there is nonattachment amongst water, mud, and thorns, etc.  , and a rising above.

udana-jayat jala-panka-kantaka-adisu asangah ukrantis ca

 

40.  From mastry of the samana, there is radiance.

samana-jayat jvalanam   41.  From samyana on the connection between the ear and space, [there arises] the divine ear.

srotva-akasayoh sambandha-samyamad divyam srotram

 

42.  From samyama on the connection between body and space, and from unity with the

lightness of cotton there is movement through space.

kaya-akasayoh sambandha-samyamat laghu-tula-samapatteh ca

akasa-gamamam

 

43.  An outer, genuine fluctuation is the great discarnate; hence the covering of light is

destroyed.

bahir akalita vrttir maha-videha tatah prakasa-avarana-ksayah

 

44.  From samyama on the significance and connection of the subtle and the own-form of the gross, there is mastery over the elements.

sthula-svarupa-suksma-anvaya-arthavatta-samyamad bhuta-jayah

 

45.  Hence arises the appearance of minuteness and so forth, perfection of the body, and

unassailability of its dharma.

samadhi-siddhir isvara-pranidhanat   46.  Perfection of the body is beauty of form, strength, and adamantine stability.

rupa-lavaya-bala-vajra-samhanantvani kaya-sampat

 

47.  From samyama on grasping, own form, I-am-ness, their connection, and their significance,

ther is mastery over the sense organs.

grahana-svarupa-asmita-anvaya-arthavattva-samyamid indriya-jaya

 

48.  Hence, there is swiftness of the mind organ, a state of being beyond the senses, and mastery over pradhana.

tato mano-javitvam vikarana-bhava pradhana-jayas ca

 

49.  Only from the discernment of the difference between sattva and purusa, there is sovereignty

over all states of being and knowedge of all.

sattva-purusa-anyata-khyati-matrasya sarva-bhava-adhistha-trtvam

sarva-jnatrtvam ca

 

50.  From dispassion toward even this, in the destruction of the seed of this impediment, arises kaivalyam.

tad-vairagyad api dosa-bija-ksaye kaivalyam

 

51.  There is no cause for attachment and pride upon the invitation of those well established,

becasue repeated association with the undesirable.

sthany-upanimantrane sanga-smaya-akaranam punar anista-prasangat

 

52.  From samyama on the moment of its succession, there is knowledge born of discrimination.

ksana-tat-kramayoh samyamad viveka-jam jnanam

 

53.  Hence, there is the asertainment of two things that are similar, due to their not being

limited (made separate) by differences of birth, designation, and place.

jati-laksana-desair anyata anavacchedat tulyayoh tatah pratipattih

 

54.  The knowledge born of discrimination is said to be liberating, (inclusive of) all conditions

and all times, and nonsuccessive.

tarkam sarva-visayam sarvatha visayam akramam ca iti

viveka-jam-jnanam

 

55.  In the sameness of purity between the sattva and the purusa there is kaivalyam.

sattva-purusayoh suddhi-sumye kaivalyam iti

 

Chapter 4:  kaivalya pada

 

1.  Perfections are born due to birth, drugs, mantra, austerity, or samadhi.

janma-osadhi-mantra-tapah-samadhi-jah siddayah

 

2.  From the flooding of prakrti, arises parinama into other births.

jati-antara-parinama prakrty-apurat

 

3.  Hence, [those things that] make distinct the limitations of these manifestations are the

instrumental cause, not the initiator, as in the case of the farmer (who does not initiate the flow of water but directs it through the use of barriers).

nimittam aprayokakam prakrtinam varana-bhedas tu tatah ksetrikavat

 

4.  The fabricating minds arise only from I-am-ness.

nirmana-cittani asmita-matrat

 

5.  The initiator is the only mind among many that is distinct from activity.

pravrtti-bhede prayojakam cittam ekam anekesam

 

6.  There, what is born of meitation is without residue.

tatra dhyana-jam anasayam

 

7.  The action of a yogin is neither black nor white; that of others is threeflold.

karma-asukla-akrsnam yoginas trividham itaresam

 

8.  Hence, the manifestation of habit patterns thus correspond to the fruition of that (karma).

tatas tad-vipaka-anugunanam eva abhivyaktir vasananam

 

9.  Becasue memory and samskaras are of one form, there is a link even among births, places, and times that are concealed.

jati-desa-kala-vyavahitanam apy antantaryam smrti-samskararayor eka rupatvat

 

10.  And there is no beginning of these due to the perpetuity of desire.

tasam anaditvam ca asiso nityatvat

 

11.  Becasue they are held together by causes, results, correspondences, and supports, when these (go into) nonbeing, (there is the) nonbeing of them (samskaras).

hetu-phala-asraya-alambanaih samgrhitatvad esam abhave tad abhavah

 

12.  In there own form, the past and future exists, due to distinctions between paths of

dharmas.

atita-anagatam svarupato asty adhva-bhedad dharmanam

 

13.  These have manifest and subtle guna natures.

te vyakta-suksmah guna-atmanah

 

14.  From the uniformity of its purinama, there is the “thatness” of an object.

parinama-ekatvad vastu-tattvam

 

15.  In the sameness of an object, becasue of its distinctness from the mind, there is a separate path of each.

vasdtu-samye citta-bhedat tayor vibhaktah panthah

 

16.  An object does not depend on one mind; there is no proof of this: how couldit be?.

na ca eka-citta-tantram vastu tad-apramanakam tada kim syat

 

17.  An object of the mind is known or not known due to the anticipation that colors it (the

mind).

tad-uparaga-apeksitvac cittasya vastu jnana-ajnatam

 

18.  The fluctuations of the mind are always known due to the changelessness of their master, purusa.

sada jnanatas citta-vrttayas tat-prabhoh purusasya aparinamitvat

 

19.  There is no self-luminosity of that (citta-vrtti) becasue of the nature of the seen.

na tat-svabhasam drsyatvat

 

20.  In one circumstance, there is no discernment of both (vrtti and purusa together).

eka-samaye ca ubhaya-anavadharanam

 

21.  In trying to see another highr mind there is an overstretching of the intellect from the

intellect and a confusion of memory.

citta-anataradrsye buddhi-buddher atiprasangah smrti-samskaras ca

 

22.  Due to the nonmixing of higher awareness, entering into that form is [in fact] the

perception of one’s own intellect.

citer apratisamkramayas tad-akara-apattau svabuddhi-samvedanam

 

23.  All purposes [are known due to] the mind being tinted with seer and seen.

drastr-drsya-aparaktam cittam sarva-artham

 

24.  From action having been done conjoinly for the purpose of another, it is speckled with innumerable habit patterns.

tad-asamkhyeya-vasanabhis-citram api para-artham samhatya karitvat

 

25.  The one who sees the distinction discontinues the cultivation of self-becoming.

visesa-darsina atma-bhava-bhavana-vinivrttih

 

 

26.  Then, inclined toward discrimination, the mind has a propensity for kaivalyam.

tada viveka-mainam kaivalya-pragbharam cittam

 

27.  In the intervening spaces of that, there are other intentions, due to samskaras.

tac-chidresu pratyaya-antarani samskarebhyah

 

28.  The cessation of them is said to be like that of the afflictions.

hanam esam klesavad uktam

 

29.  Inndeed, in [that state] reflection, for the one who has discriminative discernment and

always takes no interest, there is the cloud of dharama samadhi.

prasamkhyane’pi akusidasya sarvatha viveka-khyater dharma-megah

samadhih

 

30.  From that, there is cessation of afflicted action.

tath klesa-karma-nivrttih

 

31.  Then, little is to be known due to the eternality of knowledge which is free from all impure covering.

tada sarva-avaranam-mala-apetasya jnanasya anantyaj jneyam alpam

 

32.  From that, the purpose of the gunas is done and that succession of parinama is concluded.

tatah krta-arthanam parinama-krama-samaptir gunanam

 

33.  Succession and its correlate, the moment, are terminated by the end of parinama.

ksana-pratiyogi parinama-aparanta-nigrahyah kramah

 

34.  The return to the origin of the gunas, emptied of their purpose for purusa is kaivalyam, the

steadfastness in own form, and the power of higher awareness.

purusa-artha-sunyanam gunanam pratiprasavah kaivalyam

svarupa-pratistha va citi-saktir iti

 

–xxx–

Qualities Of Sri Krshna

From The Nectar of Devotion by Sri Prabhupada

                Personal features can be divided into two: one feature is covered, and the other feature is manifested.  When Krshna is covered by different kinds of dress, His personal feature is covered.  There is an example of His covered personal feature in Srimad Bhagavatam in connection with His dvaraka-lila (His residence in Dvaraka as its king).  Sometimes Lord Krshna began to play by dressing Himself like a woman.  Seeing this form, Uddhava said, “How wonderful it is that this woman is attracting my ecstatic love exactly as Lord Krshna does.  I think she must be Krshna covered by the dress of a woman!”

One devotee praised the bodily features of Krshna when he saw the Lord in His manifested personal feature.  He exclaimed, “How wonderful is the personal feature of Lord Krshna! How His neck is just like a conch shell! His eyes are so beautiful, as though they themselves were encountering the beauty of a lotus flower.  His body is just like the tamaala tree, very blackish.  His head is protected with a canopy of hair.  There are the marks of Srivatsa on His chest, and He is holding His conch shell.  By such beautiful bodily features, the enemy of the demon Madhu has appeared so pleasing that He can bestow upon me transcendental bliss simply by my seeing His transcendental qualities.”

Srila Rupa Gosvami, after consulting various scriptures, has enumerated the transcendental qualities of the Lord as follows: (1) beautiful features of the entire body: (2) marked with all auspicious characteristics; (3) extremely pleasing: (4) effulgent; (5) strong; (6) ever youthful; (7) wonderful linguist; (8) truthful; (9) talks pleasingly; (10) fluent; (11) highly learned: (12) highly intelligent; (13) a genius; (14) artistic; (15) extremely clever; (16) expert; (17) grateful; (18) firmly determined; (19) an expert judge of time and circumstances; (20) sees and speaks on the authority of Vedas, or scriptures; (21) pure; (22) self-controlled; (23) steadfast; (24) forbearing;

(25) forgiving; (26) grave; (27) self-satisfied: (28)possessing equilibrium; (29) magnanimous; (30) religious: (3l) heroic; (32) compassionate: (33) respectful: (34) gentle; (35) liberal; (36) shy; (37) the protector of surrendered souls; (38) happy; (39) the well-wisher of devotees; (40) controlled by love; (4l) all-auspicious; (42) most powerful: (43) all-famous: (44) popular: (45) partial to devotees: (46) very attractive to all women; (47) all-worshipable; (48) all-opulent; (49) all honorable; (50) the supreme controller.  The Supreme Personality of Godhead has all these fifty transcendental qualities in fullness as deep as the ocean.  In other words.  the extent of His qualities is inconceivable.

As parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord, the individual living entities can also possess all of these qualities in minute quantities, provided they become pure devotees of the Lord.  In other words, all of the above transcendental qualities can be present in the devotees in minute quantity, whereas the qualities in fullness are always present in the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Besides these, there are other transcendental qualities which are described by Lord Shiva to Parvati in the Padma Purana, and in the First Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam in connection with a conversation between the deity of the earth and the King of religion, Yamaraja.  It is said therein, “Persons who are desirous of becoming great personalities must be decorated with the following qualities: truthfulness, cleanliness, mercy, perseverance, renunciation, peacefulness, simplicity, control of the senses, equilibrium of the mind, austerity, equality, forbearance, placidity, learning, knowledge, detachment, opulence, chivalry, influence, strength, memory, independence, tactfulness, luster, patience, kindheartedness, ingenuity, gentility, mannerliness, determination, perfection in all knowledge, proper execution, possession of all objects of enjoyment, gravity, steadiness, faithfulness, fame, respectfulness and lack of false egotism.” Persons who are desiring to become great souls cannot be without any of the above qualities, so we can know for certain that these qualities are found in Lord Krshna, the supreme soul.

Besides all of the above-mentioned fifty qualities, Lord Krshna possesses five more, which are sometimes partially manifested in the persons of Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva.  These transcendental qualities are as follows: (51) changeless; (52) all-cognizant; (53) ever fresh; (54) sac-cid-ananda (possessing an eternal blissful body); (55) possessing all mystic perfections.

Krshna also possesses five other qualities, which are manifest in the body of Narayana, and they are listed as follows.  (56) He has inconceivable potency.  (57)Uncountable universes generate from His body.  (58) He is the original source of all incarnations.  (59) He is the giver of salvation to the enemies whom He kills.  (60) He is the attractor of liberated souls.  All these transcendental qualities are manifest wonderfully in the personal feature of Lord Krshna.

Besides these sixty transcendental qualities, Krshna has four more, which are not manifest even in the Narayana form of Godhead, what to speak of the demigods or living entities.  They are as follows.  (61) He is the performer of wonderful varieties of pastimes (especially His childhood pastimes).  (62) He is surrounded by devotees endowed with wonderful love of Godhead.  (63) He can attract all living entities all over the universes by playing on His flute.  (64) He has a wonderful excellence of beauty which cannot be rivaled anywhere in the creation.

Adding to the list these four exceptional qualities of Krshna, it is to be understood that the aggregate number of qualities of Krshna is sixty-four.  Srila Rupa Gosvami has attempted to give [In Bhaktirasamritasindhu]evidences from various scriptures about all sixty-four qualities present in the person of the Supreme Lord.

–xxx–

The Kind of Temples
the Hindus Need
by S. Vyas

    The Hindu communities all over the world have temples of God and demigods (devas/devies) worship.  However, all temples are not run is same way.  What would be a best way to run a temple?  To answer  it, we need to consider the mission of a temple.

A Temple’s Mission:

• A place to worship God/ deva/ devi.
• A place where children and people could learn what is Hinduism and how to practice it correctly.
• A place to learn about the pastimes of God, devas, and devies.
• A place for listening religious discourses, and doing bhajan kirtana.
• A place to glorify God and His great devotees.
• A place to seek association of devotees and saints/ sanyasis/ sadhus.
• A place to conduct samskaras, ceremonies and festivals.
• A place to religiously celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, new home or business opening, etc.
• A place to conduct classes for Sanskrit and other Bharatiya languages.
• A place to use all arts to glorify God and Sanatana Dharma.
• A place with a little facility where sadhus (or some one in emergency difficult time) can stay for a short time.
• A place where one can practice yagna, daana, and tapa.
• A place whose programs build unity among Hindus first, and then all the people.
• A place where the Hindus can be made aware of the threats to Hinduism and decide to take action necessary to protect Hindus and Hinduism.

Now let us see how a temple should be run.

God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is one.  He is for all living beings.  Therefore, a temple should provide equal access to services to all persons.  It should not matter whether one is rich or poor, king or beggar, famous or infamous.  If one comes to temple for darshana, then one should get it without any discrimination.

Temples receive donations and fees for religious services.  These funds should be used for temple maintenance and expansion as necessary.  It should be used to promote Sanatana Dharma.  It should be used for helping those who are in need and less fortunate with the intent that they become Krishna conscious.  (God is a vague term.  So, Sri Prabhupada prefers to use Krishna word.)  A temple should not become a money making business.

Each temple should have a religious news letter and or a web site.  A temple should be run under the religious guidance of a guru who is initiated in a bona fide parampara.  In the absence of a qualified guru, a groups of disciples of a guru could run it per guidance from the guru, saadhu, and shastras.  A temple should not become a place of local personal politics.

A temple should not allow smoking, drugs (including caffeine), gambling, meat eating, violence, or lust inducing or induced activity on temple premises or in the surrounding area.  A temple should have manpower, means, and a process available to control these irreligious things.

A temple with one main deity is best.  Krishna or any of His incarnation deity serves all the religious purpose of life.  A temple should not become a museum of all the deities of devas, devies, and Krishna.  This is because saadhanaa for each deity is different, and could be conflicting with each other.  If it is a temple of a deva or devi, then it should be understood that a deva or devi is not the Supreme being, because the Supreme could be only one and not many.  If this rule is not followed, then no temple would agree as to who is the Supreme.  This then causes disunity, and the Hindus become a laughing stock for the non Hindus.  Remember what Krishna has said in Gita:

… aham.h aadirhidevaanaam  ..
… mayaadhaksheNa pR^iti ..
… aham bIjaprada pitaa …

 

Does Hinduism Teach

That All Religions Are The Same?
A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism

source: http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/091.htm

It is by no means an exaggeration to say that the ancient religion of Hinduism has been one of the least understood religious traditions in the history of world religion. The sheer number of stereotypes, misconceptions and outright false notions about what Hinduism teaches, as well as about the precise practices and behavior that it asks of its followers, out-number those of any other religion currently known. Leaving the more obviously grotesque crypto-colonialist caricatures of cow-worshipping, caste domination and sutee aside, even many of the most fundamental theological and philosophical foundations of Hinduism often remain inexplicable mysteries to the general public and supposed scholars of Hindu Studies. More disturbing, however, is the fact that many wild misconceptions about the beliefs of Hinduism are prevalent even among the bulk of purported followers of Hinduism and, alarmingly, even to many purportedly learned spiritual teachers, gurus and swamis who claim to lead the religion in present times.

Of the many current peculiar concepts mistakenly ascribed to Hindu theology, one of the most widely misunderstood is the idea that Hinduism somehow teaches that all religions are equal…that all religions are the same, with the same purpose, goal, experientially tangible salvific state, and object of ultimate devotion. So often has this notion been thoughtlessly repeated by so many – from the common Hindu parent to the latest swamiji arriving on American shores yearning for a popular following that it has now become artificially transformed into a supposed foundation stone of modern Hindu teachings. Many Hindus are now completely convinced that this is actually what Hinduism teaches.

Despite its widespread popular repetition, however, does Hinduism actually teach the idea that all religions are really the same? Even a cursory examination of the long history of Hindu philosophical thought, as well as an objective analysis of the ultimate logical implications of such a proposition, quickly makes it quite apparent that traditional Hinduism has never supported such an idea.

The doctrine of what I call Radical Universalism makes the claim that all religions are the same. This dogmatic assertion is of very recent origin, and has become one of the most harmful misconceptions in the Hindu world in the last 150 or so years. It is a doctrine that has directly led to a self-defeating philosophical relativism that has, in turn, weakened the stature and substance of Hinduism to its very core. The doctrine of Radical Universalism has made Hindu philosophy look infantile in the eyes of non-Hindus, has led to a collective state of self-revulsion, confusion and shame in the minds of too many Hindu youth, and has opened the Hindu community to be preyed upon much more easily by the zealous missionaries of other religions. The problem of Radical Universalism is arguably the most important issue facing the global Hindu community today. In the following, we will perform an in-depth examination of the intrinsic fallacies contained in this inherently non-Hindu idea, as well as the untold damage that Radical Universalism has wrought in modern Hinduism.

What’s a Kid to Do?

Indian Hindu parents are to be given immense credit. The daily challenges that typical Hindu parents face in encouraging their children to maintain their commitment to Hinduism are enormous and very well-known. Hindu parents try their best to observe fidelity to the religion of their ancestors, often having little understanding of the religion themselves other than what was given to them, in turn, by their own parents. All too many Indian Hindu youth, on the other hand, find themselves un-attracted to a religion that is little comprehended or respected by most of those around them  Hindu and non-Hindu alike.

Today’s Hindu youth seek more strenuously convincing reasons for following a religion than merely the argument that it is the family tradition. Today’s Hindu youth demand, and deserve, cogent philosophical explanations about what Hinduism actually teaches, and why they should remain Hindu rather than join any of the many other religious alternatives they see around them.

Temple priests are often ill equipped to give these bright Hindu youth the answers they so sincerely seek…mom and dad are usually even less knowledgeable than the temple pujaris . What is a Hindu child to do?

As I travel the nation delivering lectures on Hindu philosophy and spirituality, I frequently encounter a repeated scenario. Hindu parents will often approach me after I’ve finished my lecture and timidly ask if they can have some advice. The often-repeated story goes somewhat like this:

We raised our son/daughter to be a good Hindu. We took them to the temple for important holidays. We even sent him/her to a Hindu camp for a weekend when they were 13. Now at the age of 23, our child has left Hinduism and converted to the (fill in the blank) religion. When we ask how could they have left the religion of their family, the answer that they throw back in our face is: but mama/dada, you always taught us that all religions are the same, and that it doesn’t really matter how a person worships God. So what does it matter if we’ve followed your advice and switched to another religion?

Many of you currently reading this article have probably been similarly approached by parents expressing this same dilemma. The truly sad thing about this scenario is that the child is, of course, quite correct in her assertion that she is only following the logical conclusion of her parents often-repeated mantra of all religions are the same.

If all religions are exactly the same, after all, and if we all just end up in the same place in the end anyway, then what does it really matter what religion we follow?

Hindu parents complain when their children adopt other religions, but without understanding that it was precisely this highly flawed dogma of Radical Universalism, and not some inherent flaw of Hinduism itself, that has driven their children away. My contention is that parents themselves are not to be blamed for espousing this non-Hindu idea to their children. Rather, much of the blame is to be placed at the feet of today’s ill equipped Hindu teachers and leaders, the supposed guardians of authentic Dharma teachings.

In modern Hinduism, we hear from a variety of sources this claim that all religions are equal. Unfortunately, the most damaging source of this fallacy is none other than the many un-informed spiritual leaders of the Hindu community itself. I have been to innumerable pravachanas, for example, where a benignly grinning guruji will provide his audience with the following tediously parroted metaphor, what I call the Mountain Metaphor.

The Mountain Metaphor:
Truth (or God or Brahman) lies at the summit of a very high mountain. There are many diverse paths to reach the top of the mountain, and thus attain the one supreme goal. Some paths are shorter, some longer. The path itself, however, is unimportant. The only truly important thing is that seekers all reach the top of the mountain.

While this simplistic metaphor might seem compelling at a cursory glance, it leaves out a very important elemental supposition: it makes the unfounded assumption that everyone wants to get to the top of the same mountain! As we will soon see, not every religion shares the same goal, the same conception of the Absolute (indeed, even the belief that there is an Absolute), or the same means to their respective goals. Rather, there are many different philosophical mountains, each with their own very unique claim to be the supreme goal of all human spiritual striving. As I will show, Radical Universalism is not only an idea that is riddled with self-contradictory implications, but it is a doctrine that never originated from traditional Hinduism at all.

A Tradition of Tolerance, Not Capitulation

Historically, pre-colonial classical Hinduism never taught that all religions are the same. This is not to say, however, that Hinduism has not believed in tolerance or freedom of religious thought and expression. It has very clearly always been a religion that has taught tolerance of other valid religious traditions. However, the assertion that

(a) we should have tolerance for the beliefs of other religions, is a radically different claim from the overreaching declaration that
(b) all religions are the same.

And this confusion between two thoroughly separate assertions may be one reason why so many modern Hindus believe that Hindu tolerance is synonymous with Radical Universalism. To maintain a healthy tolerance of another person’s religion does not mean that we have to then adopt that person’s religion!

Traditional Hinduism has always been the most tolerant, patient and welcoming of all religions. Hinduism is not a religion that persecutes others merely for having a difference in theological belief. Hindu India, for example, has been the sole nation on earth where the Jewish community was never persecuted. This is the case despite the presence of Jews in India for over 2000 years. Similarly, Zoroastrian refugees escaping the destruction of the Persian civilization at the hands of Islamic conquerors were greeted with welcome refuge in India over 1000 years ago. The Zoroastrian community (now known as the Parsee community) in India has thrived in all these many centuries, living together with their Hindu neighbors in peace and mutual respect. Hinduism has been a religion that has always sought to live side-by-side peacefully with the followers of other, non-Hindu, religions, whether they were the indigenous Indian religions of Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism or the foreign religions of Christianity and Islam.

In keeping with the Vedic adage that the guest in one’s home is to be treated with as much hospitality as one would treat as a visiting divinity, Hinduism has always been gracious to the followers of non-Hindu religions, and respectful of the gods, scriptures and customs of others. The tolerance and openness of Hinduism has been historically unprecedented among the wider community of world religions, universally acclaimed, and very well attested.

The common mistake that is often made, however, is to mistake the long-held Hindu tradition of tolerating other religions with the mistaken notion that Hinduism consequently encourages us to believe that all religions are exactly the same. We have mistaken Hindu tolerance with Radical Universalism.

The leap from tolerance of other faiths to a belief that all religions are equal is not a leap that is grounded in logic. Nor is it grounded in the history, literature or philosophy of the Hindu tradition itself.

Uniquely Hindu: The Crisis of the Hindu Lack of Self-Worth

In general, many of the world’s religions have been periodically guilty of fomenting rigid sectarianism and intolerance among their followers. We have witnessed, especially in the record of the more historically recent Western religions, that religion has sometimes been used as a destructive mechanism misused to divide people, to conquer others in the name of one’s god, and to make artificial and oppressive distinctions between believers and non-believers. Being an inherently non-fundamentalist world-view, Hinduism has naturally always been keen to distinguish its own tolerant approach to spirituality vis-à-vis more sectarian and conflict oriented notions of religion. Modern Hindus are infamous for bending over backwards to show the world just how non-fanatical and open-minded we are, even to the point of denying ourselves the very right to unapologetically celebrate our own Hindu tradition.

Unfortunately, in our headlong rush to devolve Hinduism of anything that might seem to even remotely resemble the closed-minded sectarianism sometimes found in other religions, we often forget the obvious truth that Hinduism is itself a systematic and self-contained religious tradition in its own right. In the same manner that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or Jainism have their own unique and specific beliefs, doctrines and claims to spiritual authority, all of which fall within the firmly demarcated theological bounds of their own unique traditions, Hinduism too has just such Hindu-centric theological and institutional bounds. Like every other religion, Hinduism is a distinct and unique tradition, with its own inbuilt beliefs, world-view, traditions, rituals, concept of the Absolute, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, cosmology, cosmogony, and theology. The grand, systematic philosophical construct that we call Hinduism today is the result of the extraordinary efforts and spiritual insights of the great rishis, yogis, acharyas and gurus of our religion, guided by the transcendent light of the Vedic revelation, that has stood the test of time. It is a tradition that is worthy of healthy celebration by Hindus and respectful admiration by non-Hindus.

Hindus have no more reason to be uncomfortable with the singular uniqueness of our own spiritual tradition, or less of a reason to boldly assert our own exceptional contributions to the development of global religious thought, than do the followers of any other venerable faith. This is an obvious, yet all too often forgotten, fact the importance of which cannot be overstated: Hinduism is its own uniquely independent religious tradition, different and distinct from any other religion on earth. There is a Hindu philosophy, a Hindu world-view, a Hindu set of ethics, a Hindu theology, a Hindu spiritual culture, a Hindu view on the nature of God (Ishvara), personhood (jiva) and material reality (jagat). In short, there is a distinctly Hindu tradition.

Such a recognition of Hinduism’s unique features is not to deny that there will always be several important similarities between many of the religions of the world. Indeed, the human impetus to know Truth being a universally experienced phenomenon, it would be quite surprising indeed if there were not some common features discernable in all the diverse religions of our common earth. While interesting commonalities and similarities can always be seen and appreciated, however, it would be misleading to consequently deny that Hinduism, like every other separate religious tradition, is also to be plainly contrasted in myriad ways from any other religion. Such a realization and acceptance of Hinduism’s unique place in the world does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have to lead automatically to sectarianism, strife, conflict or religious chauvinism. Indeed, such a recognition of Hinduism’s distinctiveness is crucial if Hindus are to possess even a modicum of healthy self-understanding, self-respect and pride in their own tradition. Self-respect and the ability to celebrate one’s unique spiritual tradition are basic psychological needs, and a cherished civil right of any human being, Hindu and non-Hindu alike.

Letting the Tradition Speak for Itself

When we look at the philosophical, literary and historical sources of the pre-colonial Hindu tradition, we find that the notion of Radical Universalism is overwhelmingly absent. The idea that all religions are the same is not found in the sacred literature of Hinduism, among the utterances of the great philosopher-acharyas of Hinduism, or in any of Hinduism’s six main schools of philosophical thought (the Shad-darshanas). Throughout the history of the tradition, such great Hindu philosophers as Vyasa, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Vijnana Bhikshu, Swami Narayana (Sahajananda Swami), and others made very unambiguous and unapologetic distinctions between the religion of Hinduism and non-Hindu religions. The sages of pre-modern Hinduism had no difficulty in boldly asserting what was, and what was not, to be considered Hindu. And they did so often! This lucid sense of religious community and philosophical clarity is seen first and foremost in the very question of what, precisely, constitutes a Hindu. Without knowing the answer to this most foundational of questions, it is impossible to fully assess the damaging inadequacies of Radical Universalist dogma.

Who is a Hindu?

Remarkably, when the question of who is a Hindu is discussed today, we get a multitude of confused and contradictory answers from both Hindu laypersons and from Hindu leaders. That we have such a difficult time understanding the answer to even so fundamental a question as who is a Hindu? is a starkly sad indicator of the lack of knowledge in the Hindu community today.

Some of the more simplistic answers to this question include:

• Anyone born in India is automatically a Hindu (the ethnicity fallacy);
• if your parents are Hindu, then you are Hindu (the familial argument);
• if you are born into a certain caste, then you are Hindu (the genetic inheritance model);
• if you believe in reincarnation, then you are Hindu (forgetting that many non-Hindu religions share at least some of the beliefs of Hinduism);
• if you practice any religion originating from India , then you are a Hindu (the national origin fallacy).

The real answer to this question has already been conclusively answered by the ancient sages of Hinduism, and is actually much simpler to ascertain than we would guess.

The two primary factors that distinguish the individual uniqueness of the great world religious traditions are

(a) the scriptural authority upon which the tradition is based, and
(b) the fundamental religious tenet(s) that it espouses.

If we ask the question what is a Jew?, for example, the answer is: someone who accepts the Torah as their scriptural guide and believes in the monotheistic concept of God espoused in these scriptures.

What is a Christian?: a person who accepts the Gospels as their scriptural guide and believes that Jesus is the incarnate God who died for their sins.

What is a Muslim?: someone who accepts the Quran as their scriptural guide, and believes that there is no God but Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet.

In general, what determines whether a person is a follower of any particular religion is whether or not they accept, and attempt to live by, the scriptural authority of that religion. This is no less true of Hinduism than it is of any other religion on earth. Thus, the question of what is a Hindu is similarly very easily answered.

By definition, a Hindu is an individual who accepts as authoritative the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures, and who strives to live in accordance with Dharma, God’s divine laws as revealed in the Vedic scriptures.

In keeping with this standard definition, all of the Hindu thinkers of the six traditional schools of Hindu philosophy (Shad-darshanas) insisted on the acceptance of the scriptural authority (shabda-pramana) of the Vedas as the primary criterion for distinguishing a Hindu from a non-Hindu, as well as distinguishing overtly Hindu philosophical positions from non-Hindu ones. It has been the historically accepted standard that, if you accept the Vedas (meaning the complete shruti and smrti canon of the Vedic scriptures, such as the four Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, etc.) as your scriptural authority, and lived your life in accordance with the Dharmic principles of the Vedas, you are then a Hindu. Thus, any Indian who rejects the authority of the Veda is obviously not a Hindu regardless of their birth. While an American, Canadian, Russian, Brazilian, Indonesian or Indian who does accept the authority of the Veda obviously is a Hindu. One is Hindu, not by race, but by practice.

Clearly Defining Hinduism

Traditional Hindu philosophers continually emphasized the crucial importance of clearly understanding what was Hinduism proper and what were non-Hindu religious paths. You cannot claim to be a Hindu, after all, if you do not understand what it is that you claim to believe, and what it is that others believe. One set of antonymous Sanskrit terms repeatedly employed by many traditional Hindu philosophers were the words vaidika and avaidika. The word vaidika (or Vedic in English) means one who accepts the teachings of the Veda. It refers specifically to the unique epistemological stance taken by the traditional schools of Hindu philosophy, known as shabda-pramana, or employing the divine sound current of Veda as a means of acquiring valid knowledge. In this sense the word vaidika is employed to differentiate those schools of Indian philosophy that accept the epistemological validity of the Veda as apaurusheya, or a perfect authoritative spiritual source, eternal and untouched by the speculations of humanity, juxtaposed with the avaidika schools that do not ascribe such validity to the Veda. In pre-Christian times, avaidika schools were clearly identified by Hindu authors as being specifically Buddhism, Jainism and the atheistic Charvaka school, all of whom did not accept the Veda. These three schools were unanimously considered non-Vedic, and thus non-Hindu (they certainly are geographically Indian religions, but they are not theologically/philosophically Hindu religions). Manu, one of the great ancient law-givers of the Hindu tradition, states the following in his Manava-dharma-shastra:

All those traditions and all those disreputable systems of philosophy that are not based on the Veda produce no positive result after death; for they are declared to be founded on darkness. All those doctrines differing from the Veda that spring up and soon perish are ineffectual and misleading, because they are of modern date. (XII, 95)

Stated in simpler terms, vaidika specifically refers to those persons who accept the Veda as their sacred scripture, and thus as their source of valid knowledge about spiritual matters.

In his famous compendium of all the known Indian schools of philosophy, the Sarva-darshana-samgraha, Madhava Acharya (a 14th century Advaita philosopher) unambiguously states that Charvakins (atheist empiricists), Bauddhas (Buddhists) and Arhatas (Jains) are among the non-Vedic, and thus non-Hindu, schools. Conversely, he lists Paniniya, Vaishnava, Shaiva and others among the Vedic, or Hindu, traditions. Likewise, in his Prasthanabheda, the well-known Madhusudana Sarasvati (fl. 17th century C.E.) contrasts all the mleccha (or barbaric) viewpoints with Hindu views and says that the former are not even worthy of consideration, whereas the Buddhist views must at least be considered and debated. The differentiation between orthodox and heterodox, from a classical Hindu perspective, rests upon acceptance of the Vedic revelation, with the latter rejecting the sanctity of the Veda. As a further attempt to clearly distinguish between Hindu and non-Hindu, Hindu philosophers regularly used the Sanskrit terms astika and nastika. The two terms are synonymous with vaidika and avaidika, respectively. Astika refers to those who believe in the Vedas, nastika to those who reject the Vedas. Under the astika category Hinduism would include any Hindu path that accepts the Veda, such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Advaita, Yoga, Nyaya, Mimamsa, among others. The nastika religions would include any religious tradition that does not accept the Veda: Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, Baha’i, etc. Thus when it came to the importance of unambiguously differentiating between the teachings of Hinduism and the teachings of non-Hindu religions, the most historically important sages of Hindu philosophical and theological thought were clearly advocates of Vaidika Dharma  Hinduism – as a systematic, unitive tradition of spiritual expression.

Dharma Rakshaka: The Defenders of Dharma

With the stark exception of very recent times, Hinduism has historically always been recognized as a separate and distinct religious phenomenon, as a tradition unto itself. It was recognized as such by both outside observers of Hinduism, as well as from within, by Hinduism’s greatest spiritual teachers. The saints and sages of Hinduism continuously strived to uphold the sanctity and gift of the Hindu world-view, often under the barrages of direct polemic opposition by non-Hindu traditions. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Charvakins (atheists), the four main philosophical schools found in Indian history, would frequently engage each other in painstakingly precise debates, arguing compellingly over even the smallest conceptual minutia of philosophical subject matter. The sages of Hinduism met such philosophical challenges with cogent argument, rigid logic and sustained pride in their tradition, usually soundly defeating their philosophical opponents in open debate.

Shankara Acharya, as only one of many examples of Hindu acharyas defending their religion, earned the title Digvijaya, or Conqueror of all Directions. This indomitable title was awarded Shankara due solely to his formidable ability to defend the Hindu tradition from the philosophical incursions of opposing (purva-paksha), non-Hindu schools of thought. Indeed, Shankara is universally attributed by both scholars, as well as later, post-Shankaran Hindu leaders, with being partially responsible for the historical decline of Buddhism in India due to his intensely polemic missionary activities. No Radical Universalist was he!

The great teacher Madhva is similarly seen as being responsible for the sharp decline of Jainism in South India due to his immense debating skills in defense of Vaidika Dharma. All pre-modern Hindu sages and philosophers recognized and celebrated the singularly unique vision that Hinduism had to offer the world, clearly distinguished between Hindu and non-Hindu religions, and defended Hinduism to the utmost of their formidable intellectual and spiritual abilities. They did so unapologetically, professionally and courageously. The Hindu world-view only makes sense, has value, and will survive if we all similarly celebrate Hinduism’s uniqueness today.

Traditional Hinduism Versus Neo-Hinduism

A tragic occurrence in the very long history of Hinduism was witnessed throughout the 19th century, the destructive magnitude of which Hindu leaders and scholars today are only beginning to adequately assess and address. This development both altered and weakened Hinduism to such a tremendous degree that Hinduism has not yet even begun to recover. The classical, traditional Hinduism that had been responsible for the continuous development of thousands of years of sophisticated culture, architecture, music, philosophy, ritual and theology came under devastating assault during the 19th century British colonial rule like at no other time in India’s history. For a thousand years previous to the British Raj, foreign marauders had repeatedly attempted to destroy Hinduism through overt physical genocide and the systematic destruction of Hindu temples and sacred places. Traditional Hinduism’s wise sages and noble warriors had fought bravely to stem this anti-Hindu holocaust to the best of their ability, more often than not paying for their bravery with their lives. What the Hindu community experienced under British Christian domination, however, was an ominously innovative form of cultural genocide. What they experienced was not an attempt at the physical annihilation of their culture, but a deceivingly more subtle program of intellectual and spiritual annihilation. It is easy for a people to understand the urgent threat posed by an enemy that seeks to literary kill them. It is much harder, though, to understand the threat of an enemy who, while remaining just as deadly, claims to seek only to serve a subjugated people’s best interests.

During this short span of time in the 19th century, the ancient grandeur and beauty of a classical Hinduism that had stood the test of thousands of years, came under direct ideological attack. What makes this period in Hindu history most especially tragic is that the main apparatus that the British used in their attempts to destroy traditional Hinduism were the British educated, spiritually co-opted sons and daughters of Hinduism itself. Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to Westernize and modernize traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords. One of the phenomena that occurred during this historic period was the fabrication of a new movement known as neo-Hinduism. Neo-Hinduism was an artificial religious construct used as a paradigmatic juxtaposition to the legitimate traditional Hinduism that had been the religion and culture of the people for thousands of years. Neo-Hinduism was used as an effective weapon to replace authentic Hinduism with a British invented version designed to make a subjugated people easier to manage and control.

The Christian and British inspired neo-Hinduism movement attempted to execute several overlapping goals, and did so with great success:

• The subtle Christianization of Hindu theology, which included concerted attacks
  on iconic imagery (archana, or murti), panentheism, and continued belief in the
  beloved gods and goddesses of traditional Hinduism.
• The imposition of the Western scientific method, rationalism and skepticism on
  the study of Hinduism in order to show Hinduism’s supposedly inferior grasp of
  reality.
• Ongoing attacks against the ancient Hindu science of ritual in the name of
  simplification and democratization of worship.
• The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian/Universalist
  Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu
  philosophy.

The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India . The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response. Had this colonialist program been carried out with a British face, it would not have met with as much success as it did. Therefore, an Indian face was used to impose neo-Hinduism upon the Hindu people. The resultant effects of the activities of Indian neo-Hindus were ruinous for traditional Hinduism.

The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of

(a) not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu; and

(b) with Traditionalists being the guardians of authentic Dharma philosophically and attitudinally, but not yet coming to full grips with the modern world…i.e., not yet having found a way of negotiating authentic Hindu Dharma with an ability to interface with modernity and communicate this unadulterated Hindu Dharma in a way that the modern mind can most appreciate it.

Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value until traditionalist Hindus can assertively, professionally and intelligently communicate the reality of genuine Hinduism to the world. Until it learns how to do this, neo-Hinduism will continue its destructive campaign.

The non-Hindu Origins of Radical Universalism

Radical Universalism is neither traditional nor classical in its origin. The origins of the distinctly non-Hindu idea of Radical Universalism, and the direct paralyzing impact it has had on modern Hindu philosophy, can only be traced back to the early 19th century. It is an idea not older than two centuries, yet the results of which have been devastating for both the progress of serious Hindu philosophical development since the 19th century, as well as in its practical effect of severely undermining Hindu self-esteem. Its intellectual roots are not even to be found in Hinduism itself, but rather are clearly traced back to Christian missionary attempts to alter the genuine teachings of authentic Hinduism. Radical Universalism was the vogue among 19th century British educated Indians, most of who had little authentic information about their own Hindu intellectual and spiritual heritage. These westernized Indians were often overly eager to gain acceptance and respectability for Indian culture from a Christian European audience who saw in Hinduism nothing more than the childish prattle of a brutish colonized people. Many exaggerated stereotypes about Hinduism had been unsettling impressionable European minds for a century previous to their era. Rather than attempting to refute these many stereotypes about Hinduism by presenting Hinduism in its authentic and pristine form, however, many of these 19th century Christianized Indians felt it was necessary to instead gut Hinduism of anything that might seem offensively exotic to the European mind. Radical Universalism seemed to be the perfect base-notion upon which to artificially construct a new Hinduism that would give the Anglicized 19th century Indian intelligentsia the acceptability they so yearned to be granted by their British masters.

We encounter one of the first instances of the Radical Universalist infiltration of Hinduism in the syncretistic teachings of Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), the founder of the infamous Brahmo Samaj. A highly controversial figure during his life, Roy was a Bengali pseudo-intellectual who was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Unitarian Church , a heterodox denomination of Christianity. In addition to studying Christianity, Islam and Sanskrit, he studied Hebrew and Greek with the dream of translating the Bible into Bengali. A self-described Hindu reformer, he viewed Hinduism through a warped colonial Christian lens. The Christian missionaries had told Roy that traditional Hinduism was a barbaric religion that had led to oppression, superstition and ignorance of the Indian people. He believed them. More, Roy saw Biblical teachings, specifically, as holding the cherished key to altering traditional Hindu teachings to make it more acceptable to India’s colonial masters. In his missionary zeal to Christianize Hinduism, this Hindu reformer even wrote an anti-Hindu tract known as The Precepts of Jesus: The Guide to Peace and Happiness. It was directly from these Christian missionaries that Roy derived the bulk of his ideas, including the anti-Hindu idea of the radical equality of all religions.

In addition to acquiring Radical Universalism from the Christian missionaries, Roy also felt it necessary to Christianize Hinduism by adopting many Biblical theological beliefs into his new neo-Hindu reform movement. Some of these other non-intrinsic adaptations included a rejection of Hindu panentheism, to be substituted with a more Biblical notion of anthropomorphic monotheism; a rejection of all iconic worship (“graven images” as the crypto-Christians of the Brahmo Samaj phrased it); and a repudiation of the doctrine of avataras, or the divine descent of God.

Roy ‘s immediate successors, Debendranath Tagore and Keshub Chandra Sen, attempted to incorporate even more Christian ideals into this new invention of neo-Hinduism. Sen even went so far as concocting a Brahmo Samaj text that contained passages from a variety of differing religious traditions, including Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. In his later years, Sen portrayed himself as a divinized prophet of the New Dispensation, which he felt replaced the Old and New Testaments, in addition to traditional Hinduism. With Sen’s continued descent into anti-Hindu apostasy and megalomania, the movement rapidly declined in importance and influence. The Brahmo Samaj is today extinct as an organization, but the global Hindu community is still feeling the damaging effects of its pernicious influence even at present.

The next two neo-Hindu Radical Universalists that we witness in the history of 19th century Hinduism are Ramakrishna (1836-1886) and Vivekananda (1863-1902). Though Vivekananda was a disciple (shishya) of Ramakrishna, the two led very different lives. Ramakrishna was born into a Hindu family in Dakshineshwar. In his adult life, he was a Hindu temple priest and a fervently demonstrative devotee of the Divine Mother. His primary object of worship was the goddess Kali, whom he worshipped with intense devotion all of his life. Despite his Hindu roots, however, many of Ramakrishna’s ideas and practices were derived, not from the ancient wisdom of classical Hinduism, but from the non-Vedic religious outlooks of Islam and liberal Christianity. Though he saw himself as being primarily Hindu, Ramakrishna also resorted to worshipping in mosques and churches, and believed that all religions aimed at the same supreme destination. He experimented with Muslim, Christian and a wide variety of Hindu practices, blending, mixing and matching practices and beliefs as they appealed to him at any given moment. In 1875, Ramakrishna met Keshub Chandra Sen, the then leader of the neo-Hindu Brahmo Samaj, and formed a close working relationship with him. Sen introduced Ramakrishna to the close-knit community of neo-Hindu activists who lived in Calcutta , and would in turn often bring these activists to Ramakrishna’s satsanghas.

Throughout his remarkable life, Ramakrishna remained illiterate, and wholly unfamiliar with both classical Hindu literature and philosophy, and the authentic teachings of the great acharyas who served as the guardians of those sacred teachings. Despite the severely obvious challenges that he experienced in understanding Hindu theology, playing upon the en vogue sentiment of religious universalism of his day, Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most widely popular of neo-Hindu Radical Universalists. The fame of Ramakrishna was to be soon eclipsed, however, by that of his most famous disciple.

Swami Vivekananda was arguably Ramakrishna’s most capable disciple. An eloquent and charismatic speaker, Vivekananda will be forever honored by the Hindu community for his brilliant defense of Hinduism at the Parliament of World Religions in 1893. Likewise, Vivekananda contributed greatly to the revival of interest in the study of Hindu scriptures and philosophy in turn-of-the-century India . The positive contributions of Vivekananda toward Hinduism are numerous and great indeed. Notwithstanding his remarkable undertakings, however, Vivekananda found himself in a similarly difficult position as other neo-Hindu leaders of his day were. How to make sense of the ancient ways of Hinduism, and hopefully preserve Hinduism, in the face of the overwhelming onslaught of modernity? Despite some positive contributions by Vivekananda and other neo-Hindus in attempting to formulate a Hindu response to the challenge of modernity, that response was often made at the expense of authentic Hindu teachings. Vivekananda, along with the other leaders of the neo-Hindu movement, felt it was necessary to both water down the authentic Hinduism of their ancestors, and to adopt such foreign ideas as Radical Universalism, with the hope of gaining the approval of the European masters they found ruling over them.

Vivekananda differed quite significantly from his famous guru in many ways, including in his philosophical outlook, personal style and organizational ambitions. While Ramakrishna led a contemplative life of relative isolation from the larger world, Vivekananda was to become a celebrated figure on the world religion stage. Vivekananda frequently took a somewhat dismissive attitude to traditional Hinduism as it was practiced in his day, arguing (quite incorrectly) that Hinduism was too often irrational, overly mythologically oriented, and too divorced from the more practical need for social welfare work. He was not very interested in Ramakrishna’s earlier emphasis on mystical devotion and ecstatic worship. Rather, Vivekananda laid stress on the centrality of his own idiosyncratic and universalistic approach to Vedanta, what later came to be known as neo-Vedanta. Vivekananda differed slightly with Ramakrishna’s version of Radical Universalism by attempting to superimpose a distinctly neo-Vedantic outlook to the idea of the unity of all religions. Vivekananda advocated a sort of hierarchical Radical Universalism that espoused the equality of all religions, while simultaneously claiming that all religions are really evolving from inferior notions of religiosity to a pinnacle mode. That pinnacle of all religious thought and practice was, for Vivekananda, of course Hinduism. Though Vivekananda contributed a great deal toward helping European and American non-Hindus to understand the greatness of Hinduism, the Radical Universalist and neo-Hindu inaccuracies that he fostered have also done a great deal of harm as well.

In order to fully experience Hinduism in its most spiritually evocative and philosophically compelling form, we must learn to recognize, and reject, the concocted influences of neo-Hinduism that have permeated the whole of Hindu thought today. It is time to rid ourselves of the liberal Christian inspired reformism that so deeply prejudiced such individuals as Ram Mohan Roy over a century ago. We must free ourselves from the anti-Hindu dogma of Radical Universalism that has so weakened Hinduism, and re-embrace an authentically classical form of Hinduism that is rooted in the actual scriptures of Hinduism, that has been preserved for thousands of years by the various disciplic successions of legitimate acharyas, and that has stood the test of time. We must celebrate traditional Hinduism. The neo-Hindu importation of Radical Universalism may resonate with many on a purely emotional level, but it remains patently anti-Hindu in its origins, an indefensible proposition philosophically, and a highly destructive doctrine to the further development of Hinduism.

Book: HINDUISM UNDER SIEGE: THE WAY OUT

By Subramanian Swamy

Copied from the Book’s jacket:

The author argues that today, as never before, Hinduism is under an invisible multi-dimensional siege; and that the manifestation of this siege can be seen by those alerted to it. The author suggests that the siege against Hinduism today is visible in four dimensions:

Religious, in the denigration of Hindu icons;

1. Psychological – e.g. in the fostering of a fraudulent version of our history;
2. Physical – e.g. the Islamic terrorist-driven ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir and Bangladesh, and money-induced conversions of Hindus to Christianity.
3. Cultural – e.g. through globalization of tastes, dress and interpersonal morality that are determined in the Anglo-Saxon white Christian world (The “West”).

The author argues that Hindus must collectively acquire a new mindset, to meet the growing challenge from a highly multi-dimensional siege which is international in character–otherwise run the risk of perishing like the ancient Greeks, Egyptians or Babylonians.

Please mail a check for $10.00 made payable to KKSFUSA and mail to Sri Guruvayurappan, 502 Justin way, Neshanic Station, NJ 08853. His tel. no. is

908-369-1644. Sincerely, Raghunath, KKSF USA [kksfusa@hotmail.com]

Are All Religions Same?

Some Hindus think that all religions are same, some say Jainism Buddhism and Hindu dharma are same. Here I share what I understand.

 

1. Those who (mostly the so called Hindus) say that the Vedas says that all the paths lead to the same god. Therefore all religions are same. This is their misinterpretation of the Vedic words. When the Vedas talked about “all the paths,” there was no other dharma than the Vedic dharma on this planet. Therefore, “all the paths” in the Vedas mean all the Vedic paths like karma yoga, gyan yoga, bhakti yoga, dhyaan yoga, worship of the devas (Indra, VaruNa, etc but mainly Shiva, Uma, Ganesh, sUrya, Hanuman) and Vishnu (Krishna) ultimately lead to the same god.

 

1. The behavior of different people with different religions is quite different. If you study the real history of these groups you will notice stark difference. For example, Christians think that god is jealous and he has a competitor – Satan. If all religions lead to same god, then the history of these groups should be similar. It is not. Some are aggressive, some are tolerant, and some are totally intolerant to other faiths.

 

2. Those who say all religions are same are mostly the so called Hindus, and they say it to the Hindus only. They do not take the responsibility to convince it to the Christians or the Muslims. And they do not give up Hindu dharma. If all religions are same, then there should not be any denial to give up one religion and accept another.

 

3. No Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, or Jew etc says all religions are same. So, then why the Hindus show should say it when it is not true? To say it is sheer foolishness. They sing asato maa sat gamaya, but they lie when they say all religions are same, and they do not know it is a lie.

 

2. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are the offshoots from Hindu dharma (Vedic dharma). Being so, there is a lot common among them and the Hindu dharma. However, the differences should be understood.

 

1. Buddha is accepted as an incarnation of Vishnu. The avatar is predicted in Bhagavatam, and it happened. In the time of Buddha, the brahmanas were misinterpreting the Vedas and were doing violent yagnas, killing animals in yagnas and eating meat. Buddha said this is adharma. He revolted against them. They would not listen, saying it is in the Vedas. So, finally, Buddha said, “I do not accept the authority of the Vedas.” Forget the Vedas, he said. Ahimsa paramo dharma, he said. Give up animal killing, he said. Sri Prabhupada explains that one cannot advance spiritually if one eats meat. Therefore, becoming a vegetarian is the first essential step if one wants spiritual advancement.

 

2. However, Buddhism failed in two ways:

 

1.                                                                i.      In his time and after it spread so much in Bharat, that even the children boys and girls began becoming Buddhist monks intending to live in celibacy in monasteries. This is hard, and male and female monks in math would engage in sex secretly. Also, the social system of the nation began to crumble. Then came Adi Shankaracharya. He propagated advaita vada (also known as gyan yoga) described in the Vedas. It spread in Bharat and thus Buddhism died in Bharat. It however spread out of Bharat – in orient.

 

1.                                                              ii.      Today we see that no Buddhist country is without having an army. If ahimsaa paramo dharma, then no army is required. Dalai Lama, a Buddha incarnate, as is believed, ran out of his homeland Tibet in 1959, and lives exiled in Bharat. China forcibly occupied Tibet, and is killing Buddhism there. Dalai Lama cannot do anything. He the Buddha cannot stop China (the communist) from killing and occupying Tibet. He cannot do it with ahimsaa. He requests the “international community” to help stop China. So, note that ahimsa cannot solve the problem against China, Russia, Saddam Husain’s, Ben Ladins, or Hitlers. It works against the Hindus and Paarsis (Zoroastrians). So, ahimsa is not paramo dharma, not an absolute principle. If it were, it should be able to solve the problem of Dalai Lama. In contrast Hindu dharma includes kshatriya dharma. Therefore, Krishna recommends Arjun to fight, even when Arjun says (in Gita) he does not want to fight.

 

3. Jainism is perverted version of the dharma given by the Rishabh Dev incarnation of Vishnu. Srimad Bhagavatam talks about it in detail. The Jains originally were Hindus who were vaishyas (traders, baniyas). Trading or business is not possible when there is fighting and fear or anarchy in the society. They chose not to fight, and want to avoid himsa at all costs. The first Vaishnav aacharya – Ramanuj – challenged Jain siddhanta. The greatest Jain aacharyas of his time came to debate with him. The debate continued in the darbaar of a king in South India for days. The Jains could not win the debate. Instead of giving up Jainism and accepting Ramanuj as their guru per the Vedic tradition, they just waked out of the debate. (Now I saw that some Jains in Vadodra have formally become Vaishnavas.) Jains choose to live in the Vedic land and with the Vedic people. No Jain opens his shop or business in a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. They say there is no god, just follow and live like arihantas (the great personalities.) They say the particles of bad karma stick with the soul permanently and there is no way out except following ahimsa and fasting. They do believe in re-incarnation like Buddhists. Because there is no god for them, their sins cannot be washed out. They need to suffer the reactions of their sins.  In contrast, the Vedic dharma has god. God or His advanced devotees can wipe out sins of one who surrenders to them completely. Now a days I see that Jains tend to accept Krishna as one of their arihantas. This is good, going back to the roots.

 

4. Where as the merchants who had no ability to fight became Jains, the farmers of Punjab chose to fight with the invading Muslims. Sikh dharma was born thus. Guru Nanak was a great saint. The Hindus of Punjab had to fight constantly against the invading Muslims coming from northwest. Guru Nanak created a dharma that he thought will be more palatable to the Muslims. Muslims say Allah has no form. So, Nanak accepted advaita siddhanta  from the Vedas. And he accepted the kshatriya dharma from the Varnaasrama dharma. So, the Sikhs believe that God has no form, but god is all merciful in contrast to Allah that is not merciful to non-believers. They will fight with any one who does asuric things or tries to take away others’ rights or property. So, they are armed farmers. Now, Jains are unarmed traders. They rely on the Hindus for their protection. They donate to the fighters. Bhaamaashaa is an example.

 

This is all about knowing and understanding the truth. Truth is one, so it could unite when understood. Please see the videos (a pravachan by a swami) at these links:

 

Hindus : STOP preaching all religions are equal 1/2

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aM4GOARP6Mk&feature=related

 

Hindus : STOP preaching all religions are equal 2/2

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aQao9-e3qxU&feature=related

 

-SV

Jai Sri Krishna.