Hare Krishna

[User]

Is it a cult or a sect of Hinduism? What exactly is it?

[andy_d]

Well, Hinduism is a massively broad tradition. There's no one official version, just thousands of sub-groups, all with a slightly different version of how things are.

So i'd say that, yes, Hare Krishnas do form part of the Hindu continuum, although I can understand how some would say they aren't. I suppose it depends on what your definition of Hinduism is. Ceratinly some of their concepts differ substantially from commonly held Hindu ones (such as the status of Krishna)

They cook a mean vegetarian, btw. I like 'em :)

[Sarpedon]

Read the Bagavad Gita. Its short, and just about the best religious text I've ever read. Don't read the heavily annotated version that the Hare Krishnas generally hand out. It should be an inch or less thick if its a genuine translation. Thats their main book, yet they follow the interpretation of this swami who lived in the early to mid twentieth century.

[shivalinga]

this site is good for info,

vnn (http://vnn.org/europe/EU0310/EU16-8408.html)


this thread,my posts (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=64352&highlight=iskcon)

[Sarpedon]

I do not agree that that site is a good source, the Hare Krishnas are a decidedly non-vedic group. The vedas are to the Hare Krishas as the Old Testament is to Christians; honored in word, and largely ignored. The movement has proved more popular in the west than in india.

[paul30]

The Hare Krishnas are as much Hindus as Pentecostal Holiness people are Christians.

There is a long tradition in Hinduism of achieving grace by love of a specific god--and that, theoretically, can be attained by chanting the name of the god.

This is what the Hares do.

As for whether they are a cult, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "cult." I think of cult as simply a small religion; but those who use the word pejoratively (that is, those who belong to BIG religions) tend to define it as leader-focused, authoritarian, proselytizing, and so on.

[shivalinga]

sarpedon sayeth

I do not agree that that site is a good source, the Hare Krishnas are a decidedly non-vedic group. The vedas are to the Hare Krishas as the Old Testament is to Christians; honored in word, and largely ignored. The movement has proved more popular in the west than in india.

perspective my good chum, that is what you need,
The Hare Krishna's are mainsteam indian religion,
no sect in india uses the actual Veda's as their primary
scripture,only secondary, the majore religion in india
is Vaishnavism, with 85% of hindus, within Vaishnavism
the main scriptures are the Bhagavad-Gita, the puranas and
the upanishads, then each individual sect within Vaishnavism
has their own scriptures that are especially relevant to the sect.

All hindu religions have respect for the Vedas,but none use the vedas as their primary books,the krishna's are no different.

The krishna's(gaudiya vaishnava's), are followers
of Sri Chaitanya, A 16th century vaishnava revivalist,
for around 100 years during his life and after
his sect was the largest and most popular movement
in india, it gradually diminished after that but remained
one the major sects in india until Bhaktivedanta came to the west in 1965, since then it has become the dominant faith among the diaspora due to it being for a long time the only traditional
Vaishnava temple culture for the diaspora to go to,
in all the major cities out side of india the indian vaishnava(and even non vaishnava) community became centered around the Iskcon(hare krishna) temples, In india Iskcon became the
establishment church,

this is from the viswa hindu parishad, the sister organization
to the BJP,Indias ruling political party, and the most powerful
hindu organization in the world, the membership includes the political elite and corporate elite of the hinud world,almost all
of the political/judicial/corporate establishment in India and abroad are "life members" of Iskcon.

saying that Iskcon is more popular in the west then in India
is quite the opposite of reality,in India they are THE establisment
sect, no other sect has the prime minister or president
or other top officials and industrialists opening their
temples,giving speeches in praise of them, giviing government support,money and land to them ,we see this only with Iskcon,
on a hill overlooking New Delhi is the Iskcon-Hinduja
"glory of India temple and cultural center" a huge mega temple
complex with museums,auditorium for music and plays,
restaurant etc, payed for by the Indias wealthiest
Family, in Bangalore another opulent temple complex,Bombay
also, etc.



Watching Hindu Interests
VHP remains alert on the conditions of Hindus living abroad and takes up the issues affecting the Hindu interests. The question of discrimination against Hindus m Arab countries was taken up with the Government of India. A seminar on "Threat to Religious Freedom in Fiji" was organised in Delhi on 13th September, 1988 presided over by Justice S.H. Sheth. Shri A.P. Venkateswaran, former Foreign Secretary, was the principal speaker. Matters regarding persecution of the members of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in USSR and Greece were also taken up with the authorities of those countries. The threat of closure of Bhakti Vedanta Manor (Krishna Temple of ISCON) held out by the Hertsmere Borough Council, U.K. was opposed, Protests in regard to maltreatment of Chakmas and Hindus in Bangladesh were also lodged, and demonstrations were also held in this regard. When relations got strained between Bharat and Nepal, the Governments of both the countries were urged to resolve the differences amicably. Attention of the Bhutanese authorities was drawn to the alleged maltreatment of Hindus in Bhutan. The Ambassador of Bhutan took pains to explain the position in detail. He sent photographs of the King of Bhutan presenting idols of deities to Hindu Temples and attending Hindu functions.

[shivalinga]

this festival took place recently in Moscow (http://in.news.yahoo.com/030821/43/2747y.html) ,at the Iskcon
temple there.

this is from an Indian travel agency for Bangalore,Indias
silicon valley,iskcon bangalore (http://www.bangalorehotels.net/iskcon.htm) ,here is a bunch of articles from indian
newspapers about iskcon bangalores being the government
sponsored school food providers,free food (http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2001/12/013.html)

this is a site for Indian executives in business and government
and their work with Iskcon, dharma institute (http://geocities.com/dharmainstitute/index.htm)

they also run some of the top hospitals in india,vina (http://www.vina.cc/index.html)

[shivalinga]

see the president of India (http://www.iskconbangalore.org/contents/events/president/index.html) serving food
at bangalore iskcon.

photo (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030214/nation.htm) of movie star opening Bhagavad gita museum
at the new delhi complex.

some more onthe glory of india (http://www.delhi123.com/travel/indelhi/iskcon.php3) center .

big doin vancouver (http://vancouver.iskcon.ca/Janmastami.htm) with government officilas etc.

some pictures of iskcon temple new delhi etc. (http://www.vrindavanmvt.com/excursions/delhi.htm)

their tmple complex in vrindavan (http://iskconvrindavan.org/) ,indias holiest city.

[shivalinga]

some more cool stuff,pictures ,videos in india (http://www.devavision.org/#Vedic-Videos) ,

iskcon bombay(mumbai) (http://d168293.u26.nexxpowered.com/Guest%20House.html) ,with 5 star restaurant,hotel in bombays malibu,juhu beach.

iskcon Jaipur (http://www.iskconjaipur.org/photo_gallery.htm) ,

iskcon Coimbatore (http://www.coimbatorean.com/)

iskconSilaguri (http://www.iskcon.net/siliguri/project.html)

iskcon Belgium castle (http://www.radhadesh.com/index.php?id=5)

and all the rest (http://www.krishna.com/links/pages/International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness__ISKCON_/index.html)

food relief (http://www.foodrelief.org/food-relief.htm)

[Sarpedon]

Shivalinga, are you trying to reply to threads in VERSE?

[shivalinga]

the russian orthodox christian church (http://vnn.org/world/WD0310/WD22-8419.html) is having a fit, they are trying
to keep out other religions from russia.

they may have to deal with the indian government (http://www.vnn.org/europe/EU0309/EU17-8351.html) , will the russians let bigotry hurt their long ties with India ?

[premjan]

the reason the president and prime minister like hare krishnas is because they are always playing to the non-resident Indian (expatriate) gallery.

The Hare Krishnas are marginal in terms of popular Hindu belief in India. Most Hindus follow their own godman or local deity or historical philosopher.

[shivalinga]

what ?
so now you 're the spokesman for almost 1 billion
hindu's ?

[premjan]

most vaishnavas are not hare krishnas.
in fact, i bet sai baba is more popular than the hare krishnas.
who's being a spokesman for all indians. how many hare krishna devotees are there among billion indians.

[shivalinga]

how do you come to these conclusions ?

I never said anywhere that Iskcon was the most popular faith
in India,I said it was among the establishment and diaspora.

The most popular faith in India is Vaishnavism,85 % of the population.

Among Vaishnavas by far the majority are Krishnaites.

Among Krishnaites the most popular are the Chaitanyites,
which is what Iskcon is.

Sai Baba is popular among the less educated, they believe
he is God, because he performs some magic tricks.

The higher classes in India are traditionally overwhelmingly
Krishna Vaishnavas.

[premjan]

ooh boy you are going to get it one day.

you just called ganesh-worshippers and murugan-worshippers and others low-class. you just watch it boy.

sai baba is quite popular among high-class indians very many of whom think of him as an incarnation of god.

where are you from anyway, and where do you get your silly ideas.

[shivalinga]

By higher classes i mean the educated,the wealthy,
and the influential.

not that those who venerate ganesh or whoever are low class,
just that the history of india shows the fact to be the fact.

if some foolish people think Sai Baba is god, in america
we have also movie stars like Tom Cruise and john Travolta
who think Scientology is where it's at,
what of it ?

does that make L.Ron Hubbard a better person ?
same with Sai Baba.

As far as "quite popular" among the elites, thats not true,
far from it.

i'm from the dark side of the moon,baby,
i get my ideas from little green men,
they speak to me through my dog
Mr.Wanker.:D

[premjan]

if many foolish people mistake Krishna for a God, who're gonna point out their mistake?

[hinduwoman]

As a resident Indian Hindu, I can't feel that Hare Krishnas are really a part of the mainstream religion. They are popular abroad mostly with foreigners, but have only marginal presence in India.
In fact I doubt how much genuine devotion is involved. What the movement offers to Westerners is a chance to get high without the use of drugs and feel as if they are doing something wonderful instead of spending their lives in materialistic persuits.

[premjan]

Sai Baba is popular among many middle-class Indians. I suggest you question your sources of information. Many such gurus are popular among high-class indians also. not all of them are satisfied with worshipping distant historical figures like Rama and Krishna.

[premjan]

and also chaitanya-bhaktas are basically a bit like Indian hippies.

[shivalinga]

Funny how you make these type of statements without really
anything to back them up.

Saying things like Iskcon is not popular in india shows that
they are not popular among your group or experience,
there are some 850 million hindus in india, saying that you speak
for them is just inaccurate to say the least.

here (http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Aug_1/msg00120.html) is an opinion on another Indian who has experience of Iskcon in india.

the point any ways, was that iskcon is most popular among the elites, which is true.

[shivalinga]

Iskcon is in fact popular in india, (http://www.dipika.org/2003/04/14.20/15.parikram%20returns/photopage_copy(2).html) these pics from their world headquarters
in bengal show this to be the case.

but in a country with 1 billion people, it is easy to
overlook or be unaware of any group.

morephotos (http://community.webshots.com/album/21379979UOWQHzvOxp)

india iskcon (http://community.webshots.com/album/21515608ILjJiMkQpV)

links page (http://www.stephen-knapp.com/links_to_other_websites.htm)

iskcon festival in Baroda (http://www.dipika.org/2003/07/16.20/16.rathayatra.in.baroda/photopage.html)

more photos from Baroda (http://www.vaisnava.cz/clanek_en.php3?no=80)

from delhi (http://www.vaisnava.cz/clanek_en.php3?no=145)

Vrndavana (http://www.vaisnava.cz/clanek_en.php3?no=180)

[shivalinga]

bangalore (http://www.iskconbangalore.org/contents/festivals/janmashtami/gallery/2003/index.html) ,

more from bangalore (http://www.iskconbangalore.org/contents/history/index.html)

top leaders of India go to bangaloreiskcon (http://temples.krishna.org/Articles/2000/07/00061.html)

Best selling book in one of india's largest state ?
iskcons (http://books.krishna.org/Articles/2002/05/037.html)

Karnataka state tourist page,check it out (http://www.karnatakatourism.com/south/bangalore/interest.htm)

and the president of india speaks out (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1997/11/1997-11-21.shtml)

[premjan]

is popular with the VHP/BJP/SanghParivar and so also with some of the politically active Hindus.

Of course groups like ISKCON give exposure to Indian culture abroad so they are popular among some PR-conscious high-level Indians. However ISKCON is diluted Hinduism for the masses.

And they definitely are hippies. It is only because Indians are so diasporic that they latch onto these groups.

And ISKCON has been dogged with allegations of sexual misconduct in the West. Not unlike Bhagwan Rajneesh.

[shivalinga]

Diluted ?
how so ?

hippies ?
how so ?

Iskcon is gaudiya vaishnavsim, decidely non hippie,
although all Yoga groups attract from the hippie crowd,
indian religious types who are really like hippies
are the naga babas,they walk around naked, smoke
ganja as their sadhana, have dreadlocks etc,
also the tantric yogis are also like hippies, again with
ganja, sex as spirituality, etc.

Iskcon is no t like them at all, they follow the traditional
Bhakti sadhana, strict observance exactly the same
as the other traditional yoga sadhanas, although in every
school of yoga there are those who are strict and those who are not.

But your comparison to hippies is just unfounded,period.

As is you watered down comment, in fact they are just the opposite, the many yogis who have been exposed in the west
teach watered down hinduism people like Maharishi Mahesh,
Yogananda,Muktananda,Rajneesh,Vivekananda,Sai Baba,
etc, etc, in india these yogis are not accepted by the traditional
'Sampradayas' or schools of vedanta, in the west they are a novelty and accepted as being bona fide and traditional,
in India they are not.

Just the opposite of Iskcon, in India they are accepted by
the traditionalists as one of them,and in the west they are
seen as being some kind of New or non traditional group.

Just like you have stated, but in fact among all of the Indian
Yogis who came to the west and started their groups, Iskcon alone was accepted by the mass of Indians, this is because
they are(or were) in fact the only traditional (Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya) Vaishnava school with temples outside of India.

So before you go and give your opinion based on your lack
of research, first learn the facts, they are Vaishnava Revivalists,
the exact opposite of watered down versions of Vedanta taught by the famous yogis in the west.

As far as the sex scandals, yes they had a problem, the result
of not checking peoples backgrounds and credentials
before allowing them to be given jobs that left them
to do what they did, when the judge in the case
commented that Iskcon dealt with the situation as they should have, exactly the opposite of the way the Catholic church tried to hide the facts, he made the comment that Iskcon acted
in the proper way, unlike Sai Baba and other groups
who have tried to run and hide from the problems
of a sexual nature in their groups.

You can't discredit them for not dealing with the problem,
as you can for the other groups, which is pretty much
all of them.:notworthy

[premjan]

they live on communes so they are a bit like hippies, although they may be doctrinally sound. Plus they are a bhakti cult so not strictly orthodox, although they follow old ways (perhaps born-again Hindus is one way to describe them).

Of course there's nothing that bad about hippies either, but they do fit together in the same category. Not sure that all hippies smoke crack either.

[shivalinga]

communes ?

most ashrams are in cities,the people live either
in the ashram(traditional yoga ashram,communal)
or they live in their own place.

the farm ashram is the same, they either live in the traditional
ashram communally,or they have their own house or whatever.

This is the same for all hindu religions,they are no different.

you say bhakti is not orthodox ?

how so ?

what do yopu consider orthodox hinduism ?

you cannot say non bhakti groups are orthodox
because orthodoxy implies within a certain religion there
are orthodox followers and un orthodox.

Bhakti has orthodox followers,and unorthodox, outside of the Vaishnava bhakti traditions like Advaita or Shaktaism or shaivism
or even the neo vedantists like the famous "gurus" each is either orthodox or not within their own religious tradition.

in the same way you cannot say Jews are not orthodox
christians,or muslims are not orthodx jews and therefore
they are not traditional.

they are different religions entirely.

So within the Vaishnava Bhakti sampradayas there are indeed orthodox and unorthodox schools.

Iskcon and it's offshoots(there are many) at least the ones
who follow the bringer of Gaudiya Vaishnavism to the west,
Bhaktivedanta Swami, are orthodox to the extreme,and are actually sometimes criticized for being to conservative,
although that depends on which group they are describing.

As far as unorthodox Vaishnava Bhakti sects the famous ones
are the Sahajiya sects, Iskcon is openly disparaging of
them, in fact you are the first person i have heard that refers
to Iskcon as un orthodox, in some sense years ago they recieved
a little criticism from some misoginistic people due to Iskcon
giving Brahmin initiation and thread to women,as well as allowing women to do puja in the temple,and as well as allowing women to live in the ashram, all traditionally not done
in India, but started by Bhaktivedanta, besides that
they have to my knowledge never been considered
to be anything but followers of the tradition as it has been practiced in india.


other groups have been criticized by the hindu establishment
for being unorthodox, the most is the Rajneesh group(now osho)
and some of the others, but Iskcon has been not only accepted
but praised as being the most important of all hindu religious
sects by not only Indian politicns and industrialists but also the cream of the academic world(indologists,religious scholars etc).

this site (http://www.webcom.com/ara/col/founder/sp-s/) ,you can read what the scholars say.

[premjan]

living in ashrams or communes deviates from normal societal practise in all communities.
hence it is unorthodox in a conventional sense.
now no religion worth its salt preaches ashram living as a norm.
all religious values are intended to be applied to normal societal life. inasmuch as hare krishna practise is merely meant as a guide to normal hindu life (i.e. working/household life), it can be considered normal or orthodox. inasmuch as it preaches ashramic living, it cannot be seriously considered as mainstream, in any society. this has nothing to do with hinduism, but with normalcy.
hence ashram living is unorthodox. even within hinduism, grahastha ashram is orthodox. communal living is more like vanaprastha.

[shivalinga]

your opinion notwithstanding is simply an opinion,
not an actual truth.

Most if not all religions have both communal living
for monks and non communal for the rest, in secular society
there is communal living in schools and the military
and even families are actual communal lifestyles,
all considered to be "the norm" whatever that is.

Non communal living is seen as an aberration,married
with children(communal) is considered normal, so ashrams
in the hindu sects are basically of two types, school
ashrams for children, and adult ashrams for Brahmacharis(single
monks),Vanaprasthas(ex married older monks) and Sanyassis(the renounced or never to marry order), we see this in other religions as well, monastaries,rabbinical communities, buddhist
monastaries ,etc.

These are all considered "the norm" by the culture they come from,and until recent times most families had at least one of the offspring become a monk and or priest of some kind.

So in that sense it is not un orthodox in the historical cultural
sense for communal living at all, just the opposite, non communal
living has and still is to some extent seen as un orthodox.

And anyway Iskcon does not preach ashram life for all people,
just the opposite,they believe that the Ashram is only for a small dedicated cadre of monks,the traditional Indian paradigm,
and that most people should live with their families,although
should contribute in some way to the temple program,which is the traditional hindu cultural norm, the temple as the center of
cultural life for the town,providing schooling,enteretainment in the
form of dance,music,theater,etc, and food and festivals ,with
contributions from the whole of society (involiving all in the town).

[shivalinga]

those crazy russkies (http://vnn.org/world/WD0310/WD29-8428.html) ,funny stuff,fear the U.S. led invasion
of "cults" to destabalize russia .:eek:

[premjan]

Boss, the whole point of Krishna's revelation was that there is no need to go hide in a monastery or stand on one leg, and that that should not be adjudged as necessary or superior to a normal life of commitment to the world as it is.

One of the principal weaknesses of Hinduism has historically been the excessive tendency for asceticism (jnana) or devotion (bhakti) with other median variations (e.g. meditation) thrown in for good measure. However, the best path is and always has been one of committed action (e.g. karma) with the other parts forming only small additions to keep one focussed.

This is from the very horse's mouth, i.e. Krishna himself, the supposed target of the Hare Krishna cult. Rather than be a culthead, learn from Krishna's example and be a committed man of action, enfolding both knowledge and devotion into committed action.

Just a small point about religion is meaningless as an end in itself. The goal clearly lies beyond. Bhakti on its own, like anything else, is "spiritual self-indulgence". In fact, Jesus, while a little more of a jnana-bhakti-yogi than a full karma-yogi could have echoed the same wisdom: it doesn't matter what you eat or how you dress. What matters is what comes out of your mouth (words) and what is in your heart (love).

Moreover, Rama who preceded Krishna, illustrated that social morality is the original basis for action.

[shivalinga]

the gita ?

maybe you should actually read it.

niyatam kuru karma tvam
karma jyayo hy akarmanah
sarira-yatrapi ca te
na prasiddhyed akarmanah

Perform your prescribed duty, for doing so is better than not working. One cannot even maintain one's physical body without work.

yas tv atma-ratir eva syad
atma-trptas ca manavah
atmany eva ca santustas
tasya karyam na vidyate

But for one who takes pleasure in the self, whose human life is one of self-realization, and who is satisfied in the self only, fully satiated -- for him there is no duty

naiva tasya krtenartho
nakrteneha kascana
na casya sarva-bhutesu
kascid artha-vyapasrayah

A self-realized man has no purpose to fulfill in the discharge of his prescribed duties, nor has he any reason not to perform such work. Nor has he any need to depend on any other living being.

mayi sarvani karmani
sannyasyadhyatma-cetasa
nirasir nirmamo bhutva
yudhyasva vigata-jvarah

Therefore, O Arjuna, surrendering all your works unto Me, with full knowledge of Me, without desires for profit, with no claims to proprietorship, and free from lethargy, fight

ye me matam idam nityam
anutisthanti manavah
sraddhavanto 'nasuyanto
mucyante te 'pi karmabhih

Those persons who execute their duties according to My injunctions and who follow this teaching faithfully, without envy, become free from the bondage of fruitive actions.

ye tv etad abhyasuyanto
nanutisthanti me matam
sarva-jnana-vimudhams tan
viddhi nastan acetasah

But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not follow them are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection

mahatmanas tu mam partha
daivim prakrtim asritah
bhajanty ananya-manaso
jnatva bhutadim avyayam

O son of Prtha, those who are not deluded, the great souls, are under the protection of the divine nature. They are fully engaged in devotional service because they know Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, original and inexhaustible.

satatam kirtayanto mam
yatantas ca drdha-vratah
namasyantas ca mam bhaktya
nit ya-yukta upasate

Always chanting My glories, endeavoring with great determination, bowing down before Me, these great souls perpetually worship Me with devotion

samo ham sarva-bhutesu
na me dvesyo 'sti na priyah
ye bhajanti tu mam bhakt ya
mayi te tesu capy aham

I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.

man-mana bhava mad-bhakto
mad-yaji mam namaskuru
mam evaishyasi yuktvaivam
atmamam mat-parayanah

Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and sages.

He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds -- he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.

Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy -- all these various qualities of living beings are created by Me alone.

One who is factually convinced of this opulence and mystic power of Mine engages in unalloyed devotional service; of this there is no doubt.

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance

Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala and Vyasa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me

I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings.

Of the Adityas I am Vishnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, of the Maruts I am Marici, and among the stars I am the moon.

Of the Vedas I am the Sama Veda; of the demigods I am Indra, the king of heaven; of the senses I am the mind; and in living beings I am the living force [consciousness].

Of all the Rudras I am Lord Shiva, of the Yaksas and Raksasas I am the Lord of wealth [Kuvera], of the Vasus I am fire [Agni], and of mountains I am Meru.

Of priests, O Arjuna, know Me to be the chief, Brhaspati. Of generals I am Kartikeya, and of bodies of water I am the ocean

Of the great sages I am Bhrgu; of vibrations I am the transcendental om. Of sacrifices I am the chanting of the holy names [japa], and of immovable things I am the Himalayas.

Of weapons I am the thunderbolt; among cows I am the surabhi. Of causes for procreation I am Kandarpa, the god of love, and of serpents I am Vasuki.

Of the many-hooded Nagas I am Ananta, and among the aquatics I am the demigod Varuna. Of departed ancestors I am Aryama, and among the dispensers of law I am Yama, the lord of death.

Of purifiers I am the wind, of the wielders of weapons I am Rama, of fishes I am the shark, and of flowing rivers I am the Ganges.

Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth.

Of letters I am the letter A, and among compound words I am the dual compound. I am also inexhaustible time, and of creators I am Brahma.

I am all-devouring death, and I am the generating principle of all that is yet to be. Among women I am fame, fortune, fine speech, memory, intelligence, steadfastness and patience

Of the hymns in the Sama Veda I am the Brhat-sama, and of poetry I am the Gayatri. Of months I am Margasirsa [November-December], and of seasons I am flower-bearing spring.

I am also the gambling of cheats, and of the splendid I am the splendor. I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong.


Among all means of suppressing lawlessness I am punishment, and of those who seek victory I am morality. Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am the wisdom

Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being -- moving or nonmoving -- that can exist without Me

O mighty conqueror of enemies, there is no end to My divine manifestations. What I have spoken to you is but a mere indication of My infinite opulences.

Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.

But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe

[premjan]

so you are self-realized. nothing more to be said then. why are you wasting time posting on bulletin boards? go immerse yourself in yourself then.

[shivalinga]

get a grip doc, you used the gita to assert your philosophy,
i merely pointed out that your philosophy is rejected by the gita,
maybe you should use the premjan sutra next time:notworthy

[premjan]

that Krishna did live a life of committed action. so one should observe his example too, and not only his words.

[shivalinga]

the difference between what Krishna says and what he does
are as follows, he gave information concerning
the nature of reality(his vision) and what his suggestion is
to deal with that.

then his life was lived to show what he can do,as opposed
to what others can do, in other words his life was lived to give
the viewer impetus to take his teachings as being that of one
who knows of what he speaks.:banghead:

[shivalinga]

to read the life of Krishna

krishna life story (http://krsnabook.com/ch1.html)

[premjan]

to you.

[contracycle]

Harry Roberts
Harry Roberts
Harry Harry
Harry Roberts

Roberts Roberts
Roberts Roberts
Harry Harry
Harry Roberts

[Supergirl]

Originally posted by Sarpedon
I do not agree that that site is a good source, the Hare Krishnas are a decidedly non-vedic group. The vedas are to the Hare Krishas as the Old Testament is to Christians; honored in word, and largely ignored. The movement has proved more popular in the west than in india.

Yeah, Paul McCartney & George Harrison had a big hand (sometimes I think the only hands??) in the establishment of Hare Krishna in the US and Britain. They spend a lot of money on their "cause".

[Sarpedon]

Thank you supergirl, for your support. Hare Krishna is definately a product of the Beatle age. Though I doubt it was entirely their doing. Going to India seemed to be a popular thing to do, especially for young british men of that era. Though it might be those two who popularized it the most. Rather than getting bogged down on the hair splitting between the Yoga of action vs the Yoga of Meditation, (too late) we could instead discuss this as a western cultural phenomenon. Perhaps the popularization of Indian music, along with the ongoing american Civil Rights movement (inspired by Ghandi) and the disillusionment that was the product of the Vietnam war led to an environment where this kind of thought was welcome. What surprises me is that a movement that has such close ties to the peaceniks of the seventies is based on a book who's message is (on one, superficial level) "Do your duty, and kill!" Comments?

[premjan]

I think the Gita is popular precisely because it bridges the gap between metaphysics and reality. The most intimate community a human knows is his family and discrimination between good and evil in the family environs is the most delicate moral example of all. This is the one that Arjuna faced and he had to act decisively in that very situation. Here is where some metaphysics and philosophy, in the person of Krishna, came to his aid. We should make note that, in the hoary tradition of all philosophers, Krishna limited his own personal engagement in the action to being a charioteer. It is said that self-realization prevents a philosopher from taking sides in the same way as other people. Hence Krishna could egg others on, but did not have the stomach to fight himself. Probably it would have destroyed his objectivity had he done so.

The Hare Krishna culture existed in India prior to the Beatles -- primarily under Chaitanya who made the same sort of communal living popular in Bengal.

[Sarpedon]

I know that it existed in India prior to the beatles. It just has achieved a great popularity in the west since (and perhaps because of) them.

[hinduwoman]

Chaitanya's cult was a mass movement which had the added benefit of stemming conversion into Islam and bringing back lowcaste converts back to the fold. Iskon is hardly that kind of mass movement.
Besides I doubt Chaitanya ever had to explain Krishna as the President of Gods whith the other gods as governors. :D

[shivalinga]

before you go off on a rant about what Chaitanya believed
or taught,here's an idea, find out.

a short overview (http://www.mandala.com.au/books/scm-precepts.htm)

[shivalinga]

one thing Chaitanya was famous for was the discovery
of a long lost vedic text,the mongols had overun india
and many ancient books were hidden,if the
person who hid them died,then they might not resurface,
so the Brahma-Samhita (http://www.dharmakshetra.com/sages/relaization%20of%20brahma.htm) was discovered
by Chaitanya hidden in an obscure temple,
and was considered by Him as a special text.

[shivalinga]

then out of left field i mention this
poem,By michael Jackson,

in which he quotes the first verse of the Brahma-Samhita;



Pure unbounded consciousness
Truth, existence, Bliss am I
In infinite expressions I come and go
Playing hide-and-seek
In the twinkling of an eye
But immortality's my game


here is the sanskrit and translation;

isvarah paramah krsnah

sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah

anadir adir govindah

sarva-karana-karanam

SYNONYMS

isvarah--the controller; paramah--supreme; krsnah--Lord Krsna; sat--comprising eternal existence; cit--absolute knowledge; ananda--and absolute bliss; vigrahah--whose form; anadih--without beginning; adih--the origin; govindah--Lord Govinda; sarva-karana-karanam--the cause of all causes.

Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and while michaels verse is not exactly the same as
that translation,it is in fact another version that
is also acceptable.

Sat Chit Ananda also can be translated
as "truth,consciousness and bliss"

vigraha or 'body or form of' also can mean the same thing
in michaels verse as "Am I"

"pure unbounded cconsciousness"

he says,also is another way of saying
the same thing as 'Sarva Karana Karanam',
or the infinite power.


the verse after that Michael writes

This body of mine
Is a flux of energy
In the river of time
Eons pass, ages come and go
I appear and disappear
Playing hide-and-seek
In the twinkling of an eye



you can read the whole poem
ARE YOU LISTENING (http://dancing-the-dream.com/Dancing_the_Dream/dancing_the_dream.html) and others,where
he quotes Krishna many times directly.

[shivalinga]

The Srimad Bhagavatam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/introduction) or "Bhagavat Purana" is the main text
for Iskcon, and for most hindus in general.

it is very looooonnnnggg.

Caitanya held this Purana(one of many) as the
most important ,because it dealt directly
with the life story of Krishna,and is the source
for that,but thats only a small part of it,for indian culture in general it has been probably the main source
for the stories and myths,including those
of South east asia,angkor wat,Bali,thailand,
vietnam, all have numerous ancient
hindu temples predating all their history,
in fact those countries are called Indo China
because they have a culture that is based
on Krishna and Arjuna,Rama and Sita and Hanuman,
Bhisma and Yudhisthira,(all characters
in the Bhagavatam) dating back thousands of
years, their traditional dance,art,music,theater,etc, is
focused on those stories,and their ancient temples
have those figures and stories carved all
over them .

[premjan]

I find it very significant that the Bhakti movement in India began pretty much with Adi Shankara about a hundred years after the prophet Muhammad brought his message to Arabia. I think this indicates that modern Hinduism is actually Islamic in its core philosophy (or an Islamic adaptation of ancient Hindu philosophy at any rate). The dates are just very fishy in this regard.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

find it very significant that the Bhakti movement in India began pretty much with Adi Shankara
Bakthi Movement began with Adi Shankara? :(
You are flouting your ignorance here.
You obviously are unknown to what Advaita for example teaches and how it is diabolically opposite to whatever Islamic teachings are! If you had been a bit knowledgable about Hinduism, you would have known to look beyond what the common practices that meet the eye are and what the hidden philosophy is.

Bakthi Movement is the revolution against Adi Shankara's teachings.
Its roots are vedic.

Meanwhile, before you go on, please get to know the different schools of Hinduism- the Shaktas, Shaivites and Vaishnavites, why they are important. You seem to have ideas without basic facts.

Islam came to India in the Eight Century, at the very same time Shakara (788 - 820) was expounding his Advaita Vedanta School. Islam had just arrived and was hardly known to be a religion. Islam influenced and shaped Modern Hinduism is such a wonderful lie that the Muslims like to repeat all over to gain credit for whatever is good in Hinduism. No Historical, Textual or Epitemological research can be had for such a lie.
In fact although Sufism shares so so much with Advaita, that many scholars searched for influences of each other, but now, it is held that the mystical branch of Sufism might have started off by itself but in the Indian sub-continent, Sufism has gained a few practices and teachings from the interaction and thus a few similiarites are not just coincidence.

The result of Islamic impact on the Indian sub-continent was that a new religion, Sikhism which retains most of its Bhakti roots but adopts a number of Islamic teachings arose.

Get Radhakrishnan's 'Indian Philosophy' in two volumes and get a grip on what Indian Philsophy is all about Mr.Premjan.

modern Hinduism is actually Islamic in its core philosophy (or an Islamic adaptation of ancient Hindu philosophy at any rate) :eek: :eek: :eek:

You are utterly wrong.
Do you want to debate with me on that? A One to One Debate. If you are ready, let me know.
The basic rules from my side would be:
You should tell me in advance all the books you will be quoting out of and I will let you have my book list.
No Internet sources please.
Anything you want to quote about Hindu Schools of Philosophy or Scriptures, It must be a direct quote from the original Scriptures' translation.. it must not be a second hand quote from a book which is quoting it from an original Source.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

My God!
Some people are plain ignorant about what the Paramparas are but flout their views on Hinduism as they have studied in a Gurukul!
One even went as far as to claim that He knows so much about epistemology, philosophy, theology to claim that modern Hinduism is AT ANY RATE, an adaptation of Islam! :eek: :banghead:

To clear things up:

1. Vedas are the supreme scriptures of Hinduism.
All schools of thought must accept Vedas as the cannon. It is unauthored, not even by God Himself. (Only a very few sects like the Lingayats do not acknowledge the supremacy of the Vedas, but they don't claim to be Hindus either.)

2. The Upanishads and Aranyakas form the Karma Kanda or Philosophical esoteric part of the Vedas. This is the Vedanta (or that which forms the end part of Vedas)

3. The Brahmasutras are the core scriptural philosophical treatise of the Vedas. They are the essential Source of philosophy for any Vedantic School.

Of the Six Philosophical Systems of Hinduism (nyaya, yoga, mimamsa -purva, uttara mimansa, vaiseshika, samkya) only Uttara or Latter Mimamsa which is also called Vedanta has survived largely and is the Modern Hinduism.

Now, A Parampara is a tradition or School of Thought.
A Parampara bases its teachings on a commentary on the Brahmasutras.

Every School of Thought has its own Commentary or Bhashya on the Brahmasutras which as said before is the core philosophical treatise of Vedanta,.. The Srivaishnavas and Visistadwaita school has the 'Sri Bhashya', while the Advaitins have Shankara's Bhashya, Dwaitins the Madhava Bhasya, Pure Non-dualists or Shudda Advaitins have Vallabha's.

Nimbarka's Bhashya is the basis for the Bhedabheda or 'Unimaginable Difference and Non-difference' school of thought and this philosophy expoined by Lord Chaitanya is is called the Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

But the Gaudiya Vaishnava traces its Guru Parampara to Sri Madhavacharya. Hence they can be called a sub-sect of Dwaita-vada or School of Dualists.

ISKCON belongs to the Gaudiya Vaishnavism and therefore is Mainline Hinduism and completely Vedic.
Its adherence is Vedanta and its theological bases are soundly Vedantic.
It is utterly wrong to say that ISKCON is non-vedic!!

ISKCON as part of Gaudiya tradition adopts the Bhakti Yoga as the supreme path opposed to Karma Yoga, Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga for this age. The Chanting of God's name is taught to be the only path in the age of Kali. Although this teaching is shared by many Vaishnavite schools, the Gaudiya Vaishnavites take it seriously.

While most Vaishnavite Schools worship Vishnu or Narayana as the Primal Brahman and Godhead while Krishna is one of the Ten Avataras,
the Gaudiya Vaishnavites differ by worshiping Lord Krishna as the supreme Godhead. This is the only difference.

[Sarpedon]

Ah, the good doctor is back. Where have you been? The Non-abrahamic religions page was getting quite boring.

As for your alarm at the general ignorance around here, I admit I actually know little. As I said I was trying to talk about Hare Krishna as a western phenomenon, where only the Gita is of real relavence, because most westerners don't read any more than that. I myself have sampled the Vedas and Upanishads, but have little in depth knowledge of them, only the impression that they espouse very different beliefs than the Gita or other, more modern hindu sects hold. Maybe its time this thread splits? or perhaps no-one else is interested in talking to me about this.

[shivalinga]

nice post jaganji, yes premjan has a habit of making
silly statements based on his lack of study,
saying Sankaracharya was teaching bhakti
has some merit,for he did somewhat,but his school
had a different purpose and focus completely.



They teach A-Dwaita, Non-Dualism,which teaches the dogma
of oneness,all things are absolutely non different,any percieved
difference is an illusion,the avatars of
Vishnu or Shiva or Durga are all temporary and ultimately
the only "real" or permanent substance or reality
is Brahman,the non differentiated cosmic goop,
when the sadhaka reaches Moksa or liberation
he realizes his onenness with Brahman,upon death
he returns to the cosmic oneness,very similar
to buddhism.


Because of the popularity of Buddhism in india
which had become the pre dominant path since the time
of Siddhartha ,Sankaracharya (considered by Vaishnavas
as an avatar of Mahadeva Shiva) preached his philosophy
of monism,this was done to bring the mass of people
back onto the Vedic path while in essence teaching
almost the same philosophy as buddhism,he was
successfull,after his mission buddhism disappeared
more or less from India,even today there are very few
Buddhists there.

after Sankara his school of advaita was the dominant school
in india,enter Madhava Acharya,his mission was to defeat
Sankara, a powerful popular charismatic preacher his
philosophy of Dwaita or Dualism was the exact opposite
of the Monist school of Sankara.

His paintings show him giving the peace sign,what that means
is his teaching of Two seperate realities,the Transcendent
supreme entity and the jivatma(human soul) +the material
manifestation,the world of Matter.

He taught that the real situation is that there is duality in
reality,the material world and the individual soul are
eternally distinct from the supreme entity and are never one.

this was done to counter Sankaras teaching,although
at the time of Sankaras death he uttered the famous line

bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
bhaja govindam mudha-mate
samprapte sannihite kale
na hi na hi raksati dukrn-karane

"You intellectual fools, just worship Govinda, just worship Govinda, just worship Govinda. Your grammatical knowledge and word jugglery will not save you at the time of death."

In fact in his Gita commentary Sankara revealed his
true inner feeling

Sankaras gita bhasya (http://india.krishna.org/Articles/2000/09/00116.html)

theh there were the Dwaitadwaita or Vishsitadwaita
teachers, like Ramanuja,Nimbarka,Vallabha,and
Caitanya.

they rejected Madhava and taught qualified non-dualism,
or oneness and simultaneous difference.

Meaning that everything in the cosmos is of one substance,
but within that substance there is difference,
the highest reality they taught is that the individual soul
or jivatma is one with the supreme cosmic soul or
paramatma, thye compared that relationship to
a spark of fire in a blaze,the spark is part
of the blaze and therefore one with it, but the blaze
is unique to the spark because it has size,power,and ability
that the sparks lack,a blaze can cook a meal,whereas a
spark while also being of the same substance as the blaze
with qualities of heat and light,it lacks the potency of the
the blaze.

they taught that the soul is seperated from the cosmic
soul by the desire of the individul, that the soul is not
really ever seperate in truth,but that he becomes
covered over by illusory conceptions,when the soul
becomes enlightened he sees the truth,that the
highest reality is that we are alwayswith God,in God,
and part of God,able to relate(rasa) directly with
the Personality of God directly.

The reason Sri Caitanya accepted Madhava
as part of his school "Brahma Madhava Gaudiya Sampradaya"
he explained thusly,Because Madhava so vigorously
opposed the monist impersonalist school of Sankara,
and was so successful,he accepts Him as a preceptor.


Islam when it came into India had no effect on the religious
thought,the teachings of Sankara,Madhava,Ramanuja,Caitanya
etc, was based on revivalism of the ancient teachings that had
been set aside by the popularity of Buddhism.

In fact Islam was influenced by Vedic thought,the sufi
school especially follows many of the ideals of Bhakti
due to the influence of the Mongol(mogul,Mogal)
empire which had kicked out the previous
islamic invaders of India when they conquered
most of the known world.

They then converted to Islam,this was more of a practical
political matter,the Islamic empire they conquered was very large
and wealthy,the mongols practiced religious tolerance
and had no problems adopting Islam to furthur
their rule and make it easy for the muslims to accept
and not to revolt.

in india the famous Mogul empire was the result,many
rulers were not like the persian and arab muslims due
to their mongol background,they held debates
inviting hindus,muslims,christians,jews, etc to debate
their belieifs,they had a very liberal attitude
that the other muslims did not like and this led
to many conflicts,Sufism doesn't follow the
many restricitve muslim ideals, they have a mystic
or yogic approach,the mongol rulers
liberal attitude had the result of Sufism becoming
the dominant islamic faith in their empire.

sikhism was created by Guru Nanak who lived around the
time of Sri Caitanaya(15th-16th century),His new religion
claimed to be a synthesis of Vedic thought and islam,
this was done to try and convert the muslims in
his area.

in fact it is not a synthesis of the two, it is a sect
of hinduism which rejects many of the intricacies
and subtle philosophy,focusing instead on a simple
presentation of Vedic thought,basically hindu lite.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Sarpedon Sir,
I was not alarmed by ignorance, but rather by the audacity of some to claim rather outrageous concepts as truth.
As for you, Sir, you like myself come accross as a student of religions and never do you claim to be an expert.
--
Any basic student of Hinduism, even one who has read the most minimum amount of material on Vedanta will recognise that there is absolutely nothing to compare and Map Islamic beliefs to it.
Right from Islamic cosmology, teleological, ontological and theological arguments to treatment of the concept of 'evil', NOTHING finds common ground with any major division of Indian Philosophy.

In fact, Hindu Philosophy had influenced pre-Islamic Persian thought and either directly or indirectly Greek and Roman philosopies.
Islamic Philosophy borrows heavily from Greek Philosophy. Islamic Philosophy is entirely of Greek origin in respect that almost all Islamic philosophers are neo-aristotelean in outlook. Only Al-Ghazzali can be said to be firmly based in Islamic primary sources, the Al-Quran and Sunnah and thus, a pure Islamic Philosopher.
Ibn Rushd, the most famous Spanish philosopher was major Aristotelian.

The FIRST MUSLIM PHILOSOPHER was Al Kindi who lived between 800 - 873 CE. If Islam had its very first philosopher in the 9th century, how could have influenced Sankaracharya (788-820) who lived a generation ago??
Is this claim not absurd?

And what about gauDapAda who is the teacher of Sankara's teacher, govinda bhagavatpAda?
gauDapAda authored the mANDUkya kArikas which is the groundwork of Advaita- giving rise to the ajAti vAda school in advaita vedAnta. Sankara merely expounded those teachings better.
Even uddAlaka AruNi, the sage of chAndogya upanishad who is pre-islamic, pre-christian is a non-dualistic sage.

Perhaps Mohammad came to their dreams and influenced Advaita through them even before Mohammad was born in the deserts of Arabia not far from Dubai? :eek:

Just going by dates of Sankara's dates and origin of Islam, if anybody comes to an conclusion that Islam by virtue of its earlier birth has influenced Hindu thought, He/She must either be a Muslim under influence of that generic propaganda Islamic Institutions are well known for, or must be an Ignoramus who has the slightest idea of Comparative religion.

-----------------------------------------------
Shivalinga, Greetings.
Right, I just have one correction, If I may,
after Sankara his school of advaita was the dominant school
in india,enter Madhava Acharya,his mission was to defeat
Sankara,

After Shankara, it was Ramanuja who was resposible for ushering in the Bhakti movement.
Vishistadwaita-vada was the answer to Advaita. It was through Sri Bashya that Ramanuja on orders from His Gurus, undertook the task of firmly establishing Vaishnava faith by defeating Advaita philosophically.

While Madhava who is chronologically a successor of Ramanuja, opposed both Vishistadwaita and Advaita, and since Ramanuja had done much already in terms of theoritical challenge to Advait, Madhava did not have that burden of debunking Advaita.

The Credit for Advaita's erasture from popular Hinduism goes to Ramanujacharya.

Actually Sankara propounded the Pancha-Devata and Ista-Devata worship, where-in one can worship, the Mother-Goddess, Shiva, Vishnu/Krishna, Muruga or Kumara and Ganesh, all as equally valid Saguna forms of Brahman.
He had authored equal number of Bhajans on Narayana/Krishna as well as on Shakti and Shiva.

---------------------------------------------------
Back to Sarpedon:
Actually the Vedic age gave more prominence to the Karma Kanda portion of the Vedas, wherein elaborate rituals and numerous sacrifices were praised as the path to Moksha.
The later Upanishadic age and the Buddhist advent was a sort of revolt against the mostly ritualistic form of worship and along with Buddhism, the Jnana kanda portion was slowly rejuvenated, culminating in the Bakthi Movement.

One should be mindful that the Bhagavad Gita is more like a short commentary on Upanishads. (The milk of Upanishads-cow by Krishna the cowherd as it is described)
Each Thought School have different readings of the Gita. The Sri Vaishnavites for example hold the Chakra Slokha of the Gita as the Central teaching of Gitacharya, Lord Krishna.
The Chakra Slokha extolls one to let go of all various religious endeavors and to put hope and belief on the Lord as the sure way of Moksha. Fear Not. (this central theme of 'Fear Not' differenciates various other faiths such as Christianity, Islam where in fear of God and fear of Hell is central to the Faithful)

The Chakra Slokha gives rise to the Prapatti Concept, unique to Sri Vaishnavism, but existing in other forms in other schools. Prapatti, is complete surrender of one self, without doubt, totally to the Lotus Feet of the Lord.
This surrender shall pave way for the Lord to take upon Himself the task to release that soul from Samsara, bondage.
[here one can notice that Christians believe that Christianity actually influenced this concept- it has been debunked many times, but nevertheless, they insist on such theories as influencing even the Gita]

What I try to illustrate is that the Gita is a flexible scripture that lends itself to be intrepretated in various philosophical points-of-view. Advaitins and Dwaitins both draw inspiration from the Gita.

And since Gita is more easier to read, expound and explain, it has come to occupy a primal position.
Orthodoxly, Gita needs lesser levels of purification of self to read it, unlike the Vedas which demand strict and total adherence to a Gurukul principle of study. Thus anyone can read the Gita anywhere at anytime.

Further, the study of Upanishads absolutely needs that one should formally be initiated into its study by a bonafide Guru belonging to any authentic Parampara. The Upanishads which mean, sit near, should be read through the expounds of Guru.. where else the Gita requires no such Guru, since Lord Krishna Himself takes upon the role of the Guru to any student of Gita.

I hope we have touched upon issues you wanted to discuss.
---------------------------------------------------------
To take a quick look at the influences of other Philosophies on Islamic Philosophical thought:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/images/phil1.gif

[shivalinga]

history of the development (http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/edu/02/7.html) of indian philosophy
from sankara to Caitanya,a really good site.


While Madhava who is chronologically a successor of Ramanuja, opposed both Vishistadwaita and Advaita, and since Ramanuja had done much already in terms of theoritical challenge to Advait, Madhava did not have that burden of debunking Advaita.


The Credit for Advaita's erasture from popular Hinduism goes to Ramanujacharya.


I like your posts,but these two points I am unfamiliar with,
from my study Sankara's school was the predominant vedanta
school at the time of Sri Caitanya,some 500 years after
Ramanuja.

while Ramanuja was born slightly earlier then Madhvacharya,
He was most known for his philosophy which had not
been widely taught for a long time,while he did
criticize Sankara ,all Vaisnava acaryas have done that.


Madhvacharya is as far as I have read, the one who is
known as the fervent anti Sankarite,i mentioned
him first earlier because in the re-establishment
of Sanatana Dharma He is known for the most opposition
to the misconceptions of the sankarite school in their
claim for absolute and singular authority of
veda jnana.

For this reason He preached the dualist message,
He wanted to specifically teach a message using authoritative
Vedanta to prove that Sankara had no more authority
scripturally then the exact opposite teaching,Madhva's
dualism,Dwaita.

so in a sense although he was living a bit later then Ramanuja,
in the development of the resurgence of Vaishnava Vedanta
his mission is often seen as being the precursor to Ramanuja
whose teaching was less based on defeating Sankaras
hold on truth,and more on establishing the true meaning
of the Brahma sutras.

so even though Madhva's teaching is rejected by most
Vaisnavas,still Sri Caitanya celebrated Him for his
mission in using the same Vedic shastra as Sankara
and defeating him with the opposite meaning.


also long before Sankara also there was Bhaskara and his
influences ,they taught the same thing as sankara,
although he called his philosophy Bhedabheda,one and different,
as do the followers of most of the Vaisnava schools,
his meaning was different,his version was that the soul
in the material world is seperate from god,not one at all,
unlike Sankara whose teaching was that the souls
under illusory concepts simply couldn't understand or
appreciate their non difference from god or Brahman.

Bhaskara then said that when the soul is liberated
then he becomes one with god,like Sankaras
vision, both believing in the souls eventual
release from any concept of difference with
the absolute oneness.

[Sarpedon]

Interesting chart, Dr Jagan, where does it come from. I have never seen any real similarity between Hinduism and Islam. There is no religion on earth as rabidly monotheistic as islam. In hinduism, there seems to be a monotheistic, a polytheistic, and pantheistic tendencies. But it would be wrong to attribute the monotheistic tendencies of hinduism to any kind of islamic influence, as it prexisted islam and any other monotheistic religion except judaism. Even the character of God is different. In Islam, God (Allah) is like a person, with likes, dislikes, rules, and who does things. In Hinduism, God (Brahman) is not like a person, having no real personality, doesn't have likes or dislikes, and doesnt really do anything, but just exists. It is much more similar to the God of the Gnostics, who was perfect and actionless. Really, I think it was hindu influence on greek mysticism, transmitted by Alex the great's empire, that influenced gnosticism and later, shi'ism and ismailism, not vice versa.
The parallels between the Rg veda and christianity are even more profound. In both we have a god sacrificing himself to himself, in order to save the entire world.

I really think that us westerners really have to try to stop taking credit for everything. We can be justly proud of or political and technological achievements, as well as cultural achievements, but we hardly have a monopoly. It is a by-product of the monotheistic mind to attribute everything to one source, and that source is of course that religions god...even if he was made up only 1400 years ago.

[shivalinga]

There is no religion on earth as rabidly monotheistic as islam. In hinduism, there seems to be a monotheistic, a polytheistic, and pantheistic tendencies. But it would be wrong to attribute the monotheistic tendencies of hinduism to any kind of islamic influence, as it prexisted islam and any other monotheistic religion except judaism. Even the character of God is different. In Islam, God (Allah) is like a person, with likes, dislikes, rules, and who does things. In Hinduism, God (Brahman) is not like a person, having no real personality, doesn't have likes or dislikes, and doesnt really do anything, but just exists. It is much more similar to the God of the Gnostics, who was perfect and actionless. Really, I think it was hindu influence on greek mysticism, transmitted by Alex the great's empire, that influenced gnosticism and later, shi'ism and ismailism, not vice versa.


wow,man there is so much wrong in that i am stunned that you have such an assertive tone.

Rabidly montheistic ?

what does that mean ?

Actually todays bible based religions which include islam
are not even close to being rabidly monothesitic,
in fact they are really dualistic.

this is due to the influence of Zoroastrianism,which
was a perverted form of Vedanta,they teach a dual
vision of the cosmos, a universal benevolent diety
concerned and operating on a higher plane,Ahura-Mazda,
sometimes personified as Mithra(named after the Vedic
solar diety Mitra,later to be changed to mithras and
incorporated into christianity in the form of most
of their concepts i.e, christmas,eucharist etc. ),
in competition with a dark diety,malevolent in spirit
who creates this material reality,and has an agenda
of a satanic nature.

This philosophy spread all over the ancient middle
east , becoming varied in the many gnostic traditions,
and becoming part of the biblical dogmas as well,
All references and ideologies in Abrahamic religions
derive their lucifer or satan ideology from Zoroasatrianism.

turn on your T.V. ,you will see televangelists
railing about the battle with Satan,or Islamic
teachings about the same,even in judaism
there is in some quarters this belief in a
dual godhead.

In fact Vedanta has no such concept,in the vedic dogma
there is God alone in existence,all things exist
as part and parcel of a single entity,whether it is
named Brahman ,vishnu or shiva,the concept is
of One omnipresent energy/beingness,
absolutely no concept of a dual godhead,
the concept of a competitior god
would be absurd to Vedantist,who believe
that the nature of the infinite is of a single
undifferentiated substance,whether they
believe in a qualitative difference within
the singularity is another matter,
but all schools of vedanta are purely mono
theistic,without a trace of a concept
of another form or type of godhead.

As far as claiming judaism as being the oldest
form of mono theism, that is propaganda.

in fact scholars can show that until moses
the hebrews were a motley crew of varied
beliefs stemming from their various homelands
and cultures,Abraham may have taught belief
in a single god,but he did not deny other gods.
just that his was superior.

Pharoah Akhnaten installed the worship of a single god in
egypt,aten , for this he was removed and written out
of the histories which they believed had some magical
potency to keep him from Heaven, he was
married to an aryan princess ,from his
writings we can see clearly his vedic
influence which were al around him,the ancient
middle east was predominantly of aryan
influence,the Kaaba in Mecca is a Vedic temple,
they worship a shivalingam installed as the
the cornerstone as is often doen in Vedic temples,
you can see it,they have removed the lingam and yoni
and worship the lingam as an object of Abraham.

thissite is a must have (http://www.atributetohinduism.com/India_and_Egypt.htm) to learn about the aryan(vedic)
influence in the pre judaic and post judaic world.

[shivalinga]

another thing,Sarpedon ,Vedic philosophy
alone of all religions investigates God in detail,
in no other philosophy will you find a detailed
account of God's "personality","likes,dislikes",
"activities","appearence","in fact the
vedic sources are so numerousa on this subject alone
it would take you many years to wade through
them.

so ,here (http://www.mahaprabhu.net/bhag2.html)
is a great place to get a quick rundown.

in other dogmas god is only described in
either abstract concepts or in a way that
emphasizes obedience through fear,
for instance in Islam Allah is to be obeyed
or you go to hell,in judaism God is to
feared,he is wrathfull and vengefull
as his main qualities,in christianity
God is to be accecpted as Jesus
or you will go to hell or be
estinguished forever.

they are all based on do or die,
accept and follow or be taken prisoner.

The vedic concept of God is the exact
opposite,God is seen as all good,
and any unpleasentness in your life
is seen as a corrective measure to
insure a perfected life in the future,
there is no accpet or die dogma,
instead it is "all paths lead to
the ultimate goal,and transcendence
is valued over acceptence of a divinity"

in other words the experience of the spiritual
reality is held as the goal,
instead of the insistence on the acceptance
of a divine mandate.

[Sarpedon]

The thing is, shivalinga, that the sources for hinduism are so varied that they CANNOT present anything even remotely resembling a unified picture of the godhead. It takes every bit as much mind-twisting to imagine a unifier to them as it does to say that the christian trinity is not a contradiction to monotheistic principles. What you present as a source of gods likes and dislikes comes from what I call the polytheistic stream of Hindu philosophy, which influences and is influenced by, but is distinct from the monotheistic current. I say that Islam is monotheistic like no other religion because its recent origins have given it no chance to mutate as older religions have done. I know full well that judaism is only around 3400 years old at the most, as pharoah akhnaten reigned 1450Bc, or therabouts. You don't need to feed me that theory, I'm already conversant with it. Moreover, the influence of dualism on western religion in no way cancels its monotheistic capacity. That satan is considered to be opposite to god no way makes him a god himself in their view...he doesn't involve the equality that Ahriman had to Ormuzd. You see, I no more accept hindu propoganda than I accept judaic, christian, or islamic propoganda. I am interested in studying religious phenomena, I have no bias. I see interesting parallels between the different currents of christianity and islam in the hindu tendencies for pantheism, polytheism, and monotheism, therefore I look for means of cross-pollinization.

You say that the Ka'aba was a VEDIC shrine? by what mechanism did vedic principles get from India to Arabia? I am interested, but not convinced by your assertion. I agree that it was a polytheistic shrine, but I am not convinced that these were vedic gods worshipped there. After all, few people would suggest that Hindu gods are identical to Egyptian gods because both are polytheistic.

Thank you for your link. In the future, I would prefer to get links to more scholarly sources, as I am suspicious of any source associated with a religious organization (don't forget which forum you are posting in!) What your website shows is the current state of a certain hindu sect's religious thinking. It is interesting in its way, but not definitive. When I read the Rg veda, there seems to be a hint of a universal godhead, but that gets overwhelmed by the characters of Soma, Agni, and Indra, gods that are no longer worshipped. It takes some mental gymnastics and interpolations to fit all these works into some smooth progression of philosophy, as you claim exists. When I talked about an actionless God, I was referring to the god of the Gita, who was all-producing, all devouring, all encompassing, and essentially actionless, as there was nothing outside of him to act upon. This interesting view attempts to unite the pantheist and monontheist tendencies, but they often break away and there is no real consensus.

Also quit preaching to me. I know the difference between the hindu version of god, and the western version. I admit the hindu version is a more attractive deity, but I believe in neither. I am interested in learning about the culture, the history, and the mythology, I enjoy a good conversation, and am anxious to learn, but you will gain no convert in me.

[shivalinga]

im sorry sarpedon,i didn't realize i was
dealing with a person of your caliber.

People like you don't let facts or truth bother them
in their quest for presenting whatever comes to their
mind as absolute perfectedness, woe to
those who question the accuracy or truthfullness
of the gods, we bow down and quake at your
visage.:notworthy

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Sarpedon,
It is from http://www.muslimphilosophy.com
The file address is: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/images/phil1.gif

Muslimphilosophy.com is an excellent resource center of material on Islamic Philosophy- if you will ignore some articles which are crap, there are many scholarly works that are educative. Recommend it for your bookmarks.

[Sarpedon]

Thanks Dr Jagan

Shivalinga, I don't think I deserve this mockery.

[shivalinga]

I myself have sampled the Vedas and Upanishads, but have little in depth knowledge of them, only the impression that they espouse very different beliefs than the Gita or other, more modern hindu sects hold.


i would agree that.

Also quit preaching to me. I know the difference between the hindu version of god, and the western version. I admit the hindu version is a more attractive deity, but I believe in neither. I am interested in learning about the culture, the history, and the mythology, I enjoy a good conversation, and am anxious to learn, but you will gain no convert in me.


whatchew talkin bout willis:eek:


Shivalinga, I don't think I deserve this mockery.


:boohoo:

[hinduwoman]

Serpedon, this confusion of Kabba with a Vedic site probably rises from the fact that when Inidan traders went to arabia they would worship the Kabba as a black sivalinga.
And of course we must not forget about stubborn desire to believe that one's civilization is the source of every civilization. :D

[premjan]

well, religion is a rather amorphous topic. the kaaba pre-islamic shrine is traditionally ascribed to Abraham and Ishmael (the two are said to have built it with their own hands). perhaps some hindus travelling from India worshipped it as a shrine of brahma or shiva (perhaps the concept of brahma comes from "Abraham" (certainly Abraham had a wife sarai who was his sister, and Brahma's wife saraswati was said to be his sister). Perhaps Abraham is a fictitious personality concocted from various other historical personalities. can't say for sure, since the historical sources tend to be bad for these religious people (look at the debate on Jesus). There could definitely be some Hindu influence on Arabia (why would there be none? the two regions are near each other and used to trade spices and horses and other goods).

As for the accidental proximity of the dates of Muhammad and Adi Shankara, I guess I meant that as a mischievous remark. I find there are several such strange coincidences in history. I think Shankara was somewhat aware of the new religion that had taken root in Arabia, since Shankara was from Kerela and Kerela is known to be the first place the Arabs set foot in, in India. Ideas have a tendency to cross-pollinate, none are entirely original ever. They say the strictness of the Nambudhiri Brahmins (Shankara's caste) and their tendency to adopt plain black and white garments owe something to an incidental borrowing from Islam. Of course Islam and Advaita are radically different beliefs, one is martial, the other monastic. Yet, I find all philosophies, where they do not borrow one from the other, tend to be obviously opposed or differentiated in some manner, that is intentional rather than accidental. In this fashion, Jews celebrate the sabbath on Saturday, Christians on Sunday and Muslims on Friday. Is this coincidence? No, it is deliberate design or intent on the part of those respective founding philosophers, in an attempt to distinguish the respective philosophies from each other. So Muhammad preached a Shariat law permitting muslims four wives (bedouin dwellings have four corners, one with a room for each wife). Shankara created a monastic order of four branches, and had exactly four primary disciples (contrast with the Buddha who had no such geographical patterns in his mind). The symmetry of both philosophies is overtly geographical. The two meet face-to-face in Srinagar, where Hazrat Bal (the prophet's beard mosque) and Shankaracharya hill face each other in the land which created or at least made famous the compromise philosophy called Sufism. Also, the timing of Islam and the beginning of the Bhakti cycle of modern Hinduism (bhakti does not originate with Shankara but he is recognized as the uniter of jnana and bhakti in the modern age, and school textbooks, when I was in school, still taught that Shankara was the first bhakti saint) are not entirely coincidental but part of some wider historical pattern.

sorry not to debate Islam vs Advaita. I was being provocative, I suppose. However, one scholar did predict (and his work was posted somewhere on this forum) that the Narashansa Muni (much-praised one) of the Rig Veda would be the one to bring the cycle of religion to a close. if Muhammad was that one, then it makes too much sense that the bhakti cycle of modern Hinduism began with Adi Shankara who was a scant few years after Muhammad.

Moreover, Ramanuja was the one who posed qualified monism as the counterweight to the absolute monism of Shankara. The South Indian Iyengars are many of them followers of Ramanuja, while many of the Iyers follow Shankara. Madhva of course took it all the way to complete dualism. There is a unfolding symetrical progress to the messages of these great philosophers, as they proceed from south india to the north (from Shankara to Kabir and Nanak and others).

Moreover, I consider Gaudiya Vaishnavism which idolizes Krisha at the expense of other Vishnu incarnations such as Rama to be a bit of a cultish simplification. The message of Krishna has no good basis without the message of Rama. The latter strengthens the family bonds, the former weakens it in preference to duty. Hence, sorry, I cannot find Gaudiya Vaishnavism with its emphasis on mindless devotion to the godhead of Krishna as satisfactory as my representative of Hinduism at its best. So what if it technically qualifies as orthodox.

[premjan]

I find the Hare Krishna cult to be basically Christianomorphic Hinduism (Hinduism made to look similar to Christianity). Much in the same way that Protestantism is Islamomorphic Christianity. I have heard that the Kalki Avatar in Hinduism is a ripoff of the horsemen of the apocalypse from the book of Revelations in the bible. Given the relative paucity of detail on Brahma, it would not surprise me if Brahma was a ripoff of a semitic prophet Abraham, which took place in relatively recent times (some say there was an active following for Brahma -- the Vipras-- in post-Gupta times). Not that any of this is a bad thing, given that Indians have always been energetic assimilators of other cultures, in addition to the stuff they produced originally.

Not saying that other people aren't copiers too. Just pointing out the ones from the Hindu side.

And Dubai is not particularly close to Mecca, which lies more on the Red Sea side.

[Sarpedon]

Lets not get too deep into the linguistic similarities between Brahma and Abraham. They are from two different language families. You may talk about similarities between Yoga and Yoke, or Bear and Bhar, because english and sanskrit are part of the same language family. However, when I read the Three Kingdoms, and encounter a character named "He man" I chuckle and keep reading, rather than inferr some obscure link between Ming Dynasty Chinese epic literature and modern american sunday morning cartoons.

[roshan]

gaudiya vaishnavas are a rather insignificant group in india. they are only siginificantly present in bengal and orissa(where shaktaism is also popular), and even over there they are not the dominant sect of vaishnavism with other sects having more followers.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

perhaps the concept of brahma comes from "Abraham" (certainly Abraham had a wife sarai who was his sister, and Brahma's wife saraswati was said to be his sister)

Saraswati, known as Savitri in the Vedas, Gayatri being her other Roopa or Avatar/form, is the CONSORT of Brahma. NOT SISTER!!!!!

Savitri and Gayatri, the latter also means a Metre, were born of Brahma's creativity.
In some puranas, Saraswati is known as Brahma's daughter. The Brahma vaivarta Purana, narrated by Narada Muni to Savarnika about Rathantara, potrays Saraswati as being given in marriage to Lord Vishnu.

Saraswati is also associated with the forerunner of Indus, the Saraswati river which has dissapeared.

So, in Hindu Mythology, Saraswati has either been Brahma's equal Half (as per Devi Bhagavata purana for example), as his Consort or His Mental Creation (Manasa putra/putri), His Daughter, just as Marichi (from whom originated Kashyapa, father of Vishwavata who inturn created Manu, the procreator of all Human Beings), Atri, Angiras, Narada - the great Sage of Devas, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatkumara, Sanasujata and others.

The point is: Just because Sarah was Abraham's sister, Please DO NOT conjure up a falsehood about Saraswati being Brahma's sister to lend credibility to any theory about similarities. It is a futile exercise.

Most Puranas about Brahma's origin talk about Brahma being born of the Navel of Lord Vishnu in a Lotus. NO BODY was born from Vishnu's navel along with him to become sibilings.. so no Brother or Sister for Brahma. He is the first born of all created beings and Hindu mythology is clear that ALL CREATED BEINGS arise from Brahma, the Grand-Sire of all that is created. (The only other Vedic narrative is about how Asuras and Devas were born, but that is for another time)

Manu is Brahma's great Grandson, the Hindu equivalent of Adam of Semitic origins.
And Manu also lays claim to the 'Patriach' status recognised with Abram/Abraham/Ibrahim of the Semitic religions.
In fact the Semitic religions have three Patriachs, Adam, Abraham and indeed Noah or Nuh as the Muslims name him, since all Mankind had originated anew from Noah after the Biblican deluge.

In Islamic as well as Christian polemics, there is a tendency to identify Noah with the Hindu Manu who also is associated with a flood story and of a Fish guiding Manu to build a boat and save himself/family.
But it should be noted that the flood story is a common mythology amongst almost all tribal cultures.
In Hindu mythology, there were many Manus, including the most recent Manu who is credited with the writing of the Manushastra which is one of the latter day Dharmashastras.

Thus the truth that there were many Manus should be clear to a student of Hinduism.

And definetely as Sarpedon has pointed, one should not jump into conclusions of comparative iconoclasm arising form similar sounding names.

And realise that Islamic apologetic texts about Mohammad being mentioned in Hindu scriptures is such a farce that any student of religion would be able to debunk that theory completely. The mentioning of Mohammad or Ahmed or 'Praised One' in the Bhavishya Purana, well, it is definetely a stupid Joke!

Dubai is of the Arabian peninsula and falls right under Mohammad's calling for all religions to be eradicated from the Peninsula except for Islam. A lot of misconceptions and deliberate half baked theories on Hinduims are let loose on the net, especially by Missionaries, Islamic Apologists and plain ignoramus arm chair theorists.

In Hindu Mythology, he appears EARLIER in the Vedas than the appearance of Abraham of Ur in the Bible/Torah, where his four arms, holding different objects: Akshamala, Kurcha or Kusa grass, Sruk or ladle, Sruva or spoon, Kamandala or water sprout, pustaka or the Vedas in form of book etc have been mentioned.

I do not think Brahma was the inspiration for Abraham and in the same way know for sure that Abraham was not the origin of Brahma in Hinduism.

It is the wish of few as Hinduwomen had rightly remarked to try to prove their civilization to be the center and source-spring of Human society.

[premjan]

There is generally debate in Hinduism about who is the greatest of the Gods. There was always sectarian sparring. E.g. Krishna is said to be the one who dethroned Indra and elevated Vishnu. The story is well-known regarding Govardhan mountain. Just because Vishnavism is today considered the dominant strain of Hinduism, does not mean Shaivites do not have stories of Shiva's superiority, or Shaktas about Devi. If Brahma is the creator, then I am sure there are some Vedic accounts of creation as issuing entirely from him (e.g. Brahman being the original self-existent). The Hindu tendency for reconciliation of sectarian differences may have led to the idea that Brahma was born from the navel of Vishnu.

I don't see why Muslims should apologize to Hindus about Islam. this may be the case in India where Muslims were generally converted from low-caste Hindus. Islam and Hinduism are unique and original philosophico-religious systems. Islam owes most of its lineage to Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism would have been considered "pagan" in Islamic reckoning, hence the emphasis on destruction of Hindu temples (and similarly the destruction of the Temple of the Mount in Jerusalem). Were Hindus not vigilant enough to guard against such destruction, it is to their own detriment. If even today, Hindus lack the self-assertion to rebuild certain historical temples such as the one of Rama Janmabhoomi, that is also to their detriment.

The point that Saraswati was Brahma's daughter, not his sister, while Sarai was, I believe, Abraham's sister, certainly destroys any possible comparison between the two.

I think the growth of religion and mythology are always best studied from both inside the system and from an entirely objective or scientific viewpoint (which can only be comparative when judging beliefs in the abstract). Certianly Hinduism springs from the Indian milieu and mentality and Islam from the Bedouin mentality. Hence one will likely not serve the needs of the other and vice versa. The problem arises in a country like India where an external ideology like Islam becomes the focus of struggle that is partly religious but also partly socio-political. Does Indian Islam have as much to do with Mughal hegemony psychologically as it does with genuine spiritual needs? I think it likely since many Indian Muslims speak Urdu rather than Arabic, and Urdu is Turko-Persian in origin, not Arabian.

[premjan]

The Bhavishya Purana did strike me as a bit of a joke, or a knockoff of semitic prophetic style but astonishingly precise (which is not apparently mainstream in Hinduism anywhere, where prophets like Buddha and Krishna rather claimed to remember all their past lives). It might have been concocted from a comparison with Nostradamus.

However, the equation of Narashansa with Muhammad may have some scholarly merit, since all religions have these kinds of predictions: e.g. Judaism predicted the coming of the messiah. Jesus took up the mantle but was rejected by the Jews. Superficially the kind of person they were looking for as a messiah seems more like Muhammad than like Jesus, but I guess for the Jews, neither will really do. In Buddhism, there is the Maitreya Buddha to come. In Hinduism, there is Kalki. And so on. Nowadays, of course, Hinduism (maybe always) is rife with godmen of all stripes and persuasions, who many of them infect the West too, from Rajneesh to Chandra Swami.

I think religion is like a base cut of philosophy, from which all thought systems later grow, so, it is likely that they consider the riddle of existence from a very basic level upwards. Hence I consider it likely that one religion could predict the emergence of its successor or neighbor. In fact, this is the sense in which prophecy probably does work.

Since there are real scholars posting on this board, armchair philosophers like myself need not waste our breath excessively, although I admit it is fun to speculate on connections between different historical ideas.

[Sarpedon]

Imagining connections between disparate things can be amusing, and occasionally useful, but can also be dangerous. Have you ever read the book "Foucault's Pendulum," by Umberto Eco? It is an excellent work, educational and also a potent cautionary tale against those who need to find order in everything around them. Check it out.

[premjan]

that's religion for you.
and philosophy.
if you are an intellectual, there's probably no escape from such a temptation.

I got the gist of the pendulum book from a review. It was about how it was possible to imagine the entire world as a conspiracy revolving around the Knights Templar. This is the basis of conspiracy theory. But it's pretty basic a characteristic of mind too, as I see it.

See any cure for this sort of tendency?
What was the end of the Eco book?

BTW: quite a bit of Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta is an excellent example) is about this kind of self-identification with the world. Cosmic humanism, tat tvam asi. aham brahmasmi et al. I am the Son of God or I am God or I am beyond God are no less similar strains of thought.

Unless you wish to disagree, of course.

[premjan]

I think Eco is probably right that no good comes from endless intellectual speculation. Sometimes though, believe it or not, it is the best way to keep oneself entertained while doing things that are otherwise very boring (e.g. computer programming).

As for intellectual "arrogance", what is it really? Is it so different from any other human failing? I guess that is as meaningless a question as any to ask.

If you have an idea or advice on how not to keep trying to draw extravagant connections, help me out. I've never been able to stop myself doing it. It's always been rather too amusing to stop doing.

[Sarpedon]

Hey, so long as its all in good fun, go for it prejam. Its just hard to distinguish between people who are having some fun and those who seriously believe funny things in this medium. One way to avoid making too many connections is to stop and say, well these things happen. Embracing the fact that most things come about circumstantially is a good cure. Also stop and ask the question "why?" If you think that the masons are poisoning the watersupply, ask "why?" If you think that God created the world, or Jesus appeared on your muffin, ask "why?" If there's no good answer to the question "why?" then its probably a result of random chance. Ultimately, I think thats the best thing against god. Why would he do ANY of this weird shit? Its much simpler to think that its random.

As to the end of the book, it turns out there is a conspiracy, but it isn't a conspiracy dating back from the templars, but a conspiracy of templar wanna-bes; people who Think there was a Templar conspiracy and who wanted to revive it.

[shivalinga]

there are many researchers who have found plenty of historical
connections between ancient cultures.

it is accepted among historians for instance that the bible(torah)
is mostly plagiarized from other traditions, sumerian,canaanite,
egyptian and indian among others.

this can be understood when we look at the origins
of judaism,for a long time they had no scriptures
or any single dogma or tradition.

Out of the thirteen tribes of ancient israel the bible
tells that only three remained in the new faith of Moses,
the bible mentions that after moses laid down the law
most of the tribes went back to their previous
traditions,this tells us that israelites were a coming together
of cultures and peoples.

this is because israel was like the america of the ancient
middle east, a place where the desert people could escape
and live near the ocean, ancient phoenicians used the levant
as the center of their trading empire because of it's
location as the center between east and west,a trade hub.

so naturaly israel became a magnet for many people
for many reasons.

the many tribes of israel were in fact seperate
cultures who came together because of their
desire to live and do business where it was easy
and nice ,and most of all had access to the sea routes
to europe,india, africa and the americas.

the actual religion of judasim was not written down
until long after the stories they tell, and the many traditions
of the tribes of israel contribute to the jewish scriptures.

We find the caananite God El in his new incarnation as
as Elohim or El, the sumerian story of gilgamesh is retold
as that of noah,and we can see that the sumerian story
comes from india.

form india (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:QgKAaRYeZRUJ:www.hermetics.org/Abraham2.html++judaism+origins+in+sumeria,egypt,india+canaan&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

the vedas have been dated using both astrological mentions in the vedas, and by the dating of the now dried up sarasvati river.

we know also from study of the Harrapan cities that they
had as india still does in this age, a problem with flooding.

so both with the monsoon floods and the drying of the sarsvati
in aryavarta(the area around the sarasvati where most of
the cities have been dug up) naturally there would have been
migrations out of india, we can see this in south east asia,
and also westward.

India has a very extreme climate,always and today there have been large amounts of people wanting out.


east of eden (http://www.viewzone.com/noah.story.html)

So abraham came as the bible tells from "east of eden",
any specifics in the bible have to be understood from the perspective of the fact that is was written down by people
who lived long after the facts,their agenda was to create
a mythology for their cause,whatever it was.

so the various myths of the various tribes of israel had been around for thousands of years, they were compiled and sanatized
according to the motivations of the writers.(God "told"
the lsrealites that israel was for them alone,theywere
the "chosen" people etc).

much later Muhammed used the jewish scripture when creating
a new religion, adding a new layer of myth to the many
myths turned into "history" in the bible.

at this site,atthe bottom of the page,
sword of truth (http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/aditichaturvedi/articles.html) , is an 8 part series on the history of pre-islamic arabia,in fact the vedic influence in arabia was long and ingrained at the time
of muhammed , Kaaba is short for Kubera,the god
of wealth in vedic symbolic theology.

here is a tase of the series.

Some people wrongly believe that Arabs used the word Hindu as a term of contemptuous abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people of pre-Islamic Arabia held Hinduism in great esteem as evidenced from the fact that they would endearingly call their most attractive and favourite daughters as Hinda and Saifi Hindi. The fact that Arabs regarded India as their spiritual and cultural motherland long before the damaging influence of Islam is corroborated by the following poem which mentions each one of the four Vedas by name: (The English translation is in black)


"Aya muwarekal araj yushaiya noha
minar HIND-e
Wa aradakallaha
manyonaifail jikaratun"

"Oh the divine land of HIND (India)
(how) very blessed art thou!
Because thou art the chosen
of God blessed with knowledge"

"Wahalatijali Yatun ainana sahabi
akha-atun jikra Wahajayhi yonajjalur
-rasu minal HINDATUN "

"That celestial knowledge which like
four lighthouses shone in such
brilliance - through the (utterances of)
Indian sages in fourfold abundance."

"Yakuloonallaha ya ahal araf alameen
kullahum
Fattabe-u jikaratul VEDA bukkun
malam yonajjaylatun"

"God enjoins on all humans,
follow with hands down
The path the Vedas with his divine
precept lay down."

"Wahowa alamus SAMA wal YAJUR
minallahay Tanajeelan
Fa-e-noma ya akhigo mutiabay-an
Yobassheriyona jatun"

"Bursting with (Divine) knowledge
are SAM &YAJUR bestowed on creation,
Hence brothers respect and
follow the Vedas, guides to salvation"

"Wa-isa nain huma RIG ATHAR nasayhin
Ka-a-Khuwatun
Wa asant Ala-udan wabowa masha -e-ratun"

"Two others, the Rig and Athar teach us
fraternity, Sheltering under their
lustre dispels darkness till eternity"


This poem was written by Labi-Bin-E- Akhtab-Bin-E-Turfa who lived in Arabia around 1850 B.C. That was 2300 years before Mohammed!!! This verse can be found in Sair- Ul-Okul which is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. It was compiled in 1742 AD under order of the Turkish Sultan Salim.

That the Vedas were the religious scriptures to which the Arabs owed allegiance as early as 1800 B.C. proves not only the antiquity of the Vedas but also the existence of Indian rule over the entire region from the Indus to the Mediterranean, because it is a fact of history that the religion of the ruler is practised by his subjects.

Vedic culture was very much alive just before the birth of Muhammad. Again let's refer to the Sair-Ul-Okul. The following poem was written by Jirrham Bintoi who lived 165 years before the prophet Muhammed. It is in praise of India's great King Vikramaditya who had lived 500 years before Bintoi. (The English translation is in red).


"Itrasshaphai Santul
Bikramatul phehalameen Karimun
Bihillahaya Samiminela
Motakabbenaran Bihillaha
Yubee qaid min howa
Yaphakharu phajgal asari
nahans Osirim Bayjayholeen
Yaha sabdunya Kanateph natephi
bijihalin Atadari Bilala masaurateen
phakef Tasabahu. Kaunni eja majakaralhada
walhada Achimiman, burukan, Kad, Toluho
watastaru Bihillaha yakajibainana
baleykulle amarena
Phaheya jaunabil amaray Bikramatoon"

- (Sair-ul-Okul, Page 315)



"Fortunate are those who were born
during King Vikram's reign, he was
a noble generous, dutiful ruler devoted
to the welfare of his subjects. But at
that time, We Arabs oblivious of divinity
were lost in sensual pleasures. Plotting
& torture were rampant. The darkness of
ignorance had enveloped our country.
Like the lamb struggling for its life
in the cruel jaws of a wolf, we Arabs
were gripped by ignorance. The whole
country was enveloped in a darkness as
intense as on a New moon night. But the
present dawn & pleasant sunshine of
education is the result of the favor of
that noble king Vikram whose benevolence
did not lose sight of us foreigners as we
were. He spread his sacred culture amongst
us and sent scholars from his own land
whose brilliance shone like that of the sun
in our country. These scholars & preceptors
through whose benevolence we were once again
made aware of the presence of god, introduced
to his secret knowledge & put on the road to
truth, had come to our country to initiate us
in that culture & impart education."

[Sarpedon]

Do you have ANY idea of how far india is from israel? Thats quite a trek for people who are short on water to make. Why wouldn't they go south, further into the subcontinent, or east, to the ganges. I can believe the idea of transfer of myths through trade, but a mass migration from the indus river to israel is a dubious proposition.

That pre-islamic arabia was influenced by hinduism is clear...after all, trade through persia was common after the Hellenistic period of alexander the great. But Judaism had already formed by this time.

[shivalinga]

the point wasn't that indians moved to israel
overnight,there was continuos migrations
for millenia,

not that it would be unheard of,all through history there
have been large migrations over great distances,
the mongols,the greeks,romans,turks,etc, most european
stock came from far away,that is all well documented
but you actually need to make an effort to learn,
if you rely on nothing more then public school education
and or mass media,all you'll get is biased propaganda
and self serving vanity projects.

the jewish mythology is that the jewish people
came from sumeria,the ancient trade routes
from east to west place India as the middleman,
either through the silk road or by sea to yemen and the red sea area ,India was traditionaly the place merchants wanted
to go, Columbus came to amercia searching for an easy route
to india,India has always been the center of world trade,
all goods from east asia would come to india then onward,
the trade routes between india and arabia and east asia
by sea made travel easy,at certaintimes of the year
the currents carry you from india to arabia,then later
they carry you back,always within sight of land,
it 's still used today by sailors in ancient types of boats.

the northern trade route went through the kybher pass,
and the silk road through shambala or know called
Xinjiang,on into afghanistan and points south and west.

Great cities throughout history were built on these trade routes,
caravans would be constantly on the move, for indians to leave
with promise of a land without monsoon flooding,droughts,
tigers,oppresive humidity,ect, which was what they had to look
forward to if they went to south or east india.

You need to know jewish history and the picture becomes clear,
the hebrews were a bunch of tribes who had only one thing in common,they migrated to the coast,those tribes were originally
from many different places,To go from India by boat to the Babylonian empire would take a short amount of time,
by land through the kybher pass would be longer
but still it was a major trade route for a long time.

anyway the point is it is not incredible,the mongols
went from mongolia to austria,the turks went from
turkestan to turkey,the huns,the tocharians,the celts,
the alans,the vikings,native americans all migrated
in large numbers great distances,why are Indians
different,by sea it was very easy.

But nooooo,Jewish history is sacred it couldn't possibly
have changed from the time events were supposed
to have taken place until a few thousand years later
when they were codified,why that is truely unbelievable,
human error,no way, the jews are who the bible
says,it is perfect and unassailable history,who cares
what anyone else says ?

sanskrit and hebrew (http://www.viewzone.com/matlock.html)

[premjan]

the Matlock article is full of descriptive strokes but not a lot of data. The data is pretty circumstantial and appears contrived to me.

"gaon" means "village" in Hindi, but apparently "genius" in Hebrew. Why do we believe this is the same word?

Kashmir is predominantly Muslim. Maybe the Semitic or Jewish names are from Muslim and not from Hindu influence.

Ishalaya == Islam? Why not Salaam or Shalom?

Muhammad == Mahatma? Doesn't sound likely. I thought Muhammad meant "much praised" and not "great soul".

Surprised that "Ramallah" (a place in Palestine) is not brought up as indicating that Rama is the original model for Allah. Iran is known to share a fair bit of culture and nomenclature with India (e.g. the names Shiva and Rama are used in Iran).

Brit == Bharat? sounds very fanciful.

Yemen == Yamuna? Is there even a story to back this one up?

I suppose it is possible that there were many Jewish emigres once living in Kashmir (who later converted to Islam or moved or died out).

I have heard the story that St. Thomas' first visit was to the king Gondophernes in Taxila (which is in Pakistan).

It is possible that there are one or two religious/linguistic/cultural borrowings between Judaic and Hindu groups. Or that there was a "lost tribe" of Israel living in Afghanistan or somewhere else in the Indian subcontinent. Or that there were some settlers from India who went out to Palestine or the Middle East (the Gypsies are known to have emigrated from North India to Europe in the 9th century or thereabouts).

But mostly this is just circumstantial evidence and not very good evidence at that.

I have heard that some Indian kings intermarried with other royal families of Asia. Nothing surprising about that. Even in Mahabharata, Gandhari came from Afghanistan to be the bride of Dritarashtra in Hastinapura. There may have been intermarriage with kings much further afield, as in Korea or Palestine.

Most of this stuff is really reaching, however. Indic, Sinic and Semitic strains of culture are all pretty distinct today, despite some mutual influence. Probably there has been some incidental borrowing, some export and import (e.g. Buddhism) but nothing so systematic as you suggest. I would suggest that you wish to conflate Judaism and Hinduism since this is more meaningful to you. However "meaning" and truth bear no real relation to each other. One is purely a mental construct. The other is externally verifiable and not dependent on any particular mind.

[premjan]

Anyway Shivalinga,

There is a little bit of stuff about how the Greeks believed that India was the source of Jewish thinking. The Greeks were however very much in awe of the Persians and the Indians due to some of their own ideas appearing to have been foreshadowed by the Eastern thinkers. However, when seen from a modern context, although ancient Indian mathematicians and scientists did produce a fair bit of work, none of it was probabl as organized as, for example, Euclid with his system of axiomatic geometry. It is perhaps not so surprising that a persistent strain of inventiveness in the quantitative and analytical domain has come from the west, and that too, at a rather late date in history.

I don't consider Jewish ideas to be in any way central to modern thinking. Sure, some of the Jews have been quite successful in modern times in the scholarly arena, but I attribute that as much to specialization as anything else. The same kind of selective success is seen among some groups in India (e.g. Brahmans and some Vaishyas whose traditional respect for scholarship produces a high level of success without IMO establishing any insurmountable genetic superiority in this regard).

Your persistent desire to muddle history by introducing fanciful variations very well illustrates one thing: the reason why Indians have never developed a coherent written account of their own histories. Lack of respect for fact has led them to produce mostly sycophantic and melodramatic literature and not as much hard descriptive stuff. There's no Herodotus in India although there is a fair bit of stuff eulogizing famous kings and so on. Indians are not hard-headed but largely emotionally driven historically. Might be something to do with our climate or our racial type or our natural inclinations.

As long as what you are doing is in good fun, go for it. But don't for one instant, mistake it for being worth much -- it isn't.

Regards,
Prem J

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

the reason why Indians have never developed a coherent written account of their own histories.

This view is typical of one who has exclusively been treated to many of US's old school textbooks.

Let us take a look at one example that reflects the same sentiment as above,: Quoting:

In A. Beka's texts,
Hindus are called evil pagans. Quoting an unidentified scholar from a
seventh grade textbook, "Hindus are incapable of writing history
all that happens is dissipated in their minds into confused
dreams. What we call historical truth and veracity -- intelligent,
thoughtful comprehension of events, and fidelity in representing them
-- nothing of this