Dis-info about authentic Hinduism

[Bhaktajan II]

Still you identify more with Arjuna, although you have drawn closer to Krishna when you say 'he must "enter the zone" and then, live or die'. Let me ask, what is the nature or essence of a man? Is that affected one way or another when the body dies?

Krishna gave a “Crash-Course” on the goal and appilication of Yoga self-realisation in the midst of work and activities. Since the maxim is known, ‘there is danger at every step within the material world’ ---the alternative for a sober gentleman, is to enter ashram life immediately ---all others will be involved indefinitely in material pursuits, thus ensnaring themselves in network maya and samsara ---until the Absolute Godhead reveals Himself as-He-is. Krishna did just that for His friend the prince Arjuna.

Bhagavad-gītā 7.30:
Those who know Me as the Supreme Lord, as the governing principle of the material manifestation, who know Me as the one underlying all the demigods and as the one sustaining all sacrifices, can, with steadfast mind, understand and know Me even at the time of death.

Bhagavad-gītā 8.1:
Arjuna inquired:

"O my Lord, O Supreme Person, what is Brahman? What is the self? What are fruitive activities? What is this material manifestation? And what are the demigods? Please explain this to me."

Bhagavad-gītā 8.2:
"How does this Lord of sacrifice live in the body, and in which part does He live, O Madhusudana? And how can those engaged in devotional service know You at the time of death?"

Bhagavad-gītā 8.3:
The Supreme Lord said:

"The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called the self. Action pertaining to the development of these material bodies is called karma, or fruitive activities."

Bhagavad-gītā 8.4:
"Physical nature is known to be endlessly mutable. The universe is the cosmic form of the Supreme Lord, and I am that Lord represented as the Supersoul, dwelling in the heart of every embodied being."

Bhagavad-gītā 8.5:
"And whoever, at the time of death, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt."

Bhagavad-gītā 8.6:
"Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, that state he will attain without fail."

Bhagavad-gītā 8.10:
“One who, at the time of death, fixes his life air between the eyebrows and, by the strength of yoga, with an undeviating mind, engages himself in remembering the Supreme Lord in full devotion, will certainly attain to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

 

[Aupmanyav]

Let me ask, what is the nature or essence of a man? Is that affected one way or another when the body dies?

Different hindus will give different answers for this. And that is perfectly OK. People may have various views and hinduism accepts that. Different views are known as 'matas' (opinions). Our books say 'munde-munde matir-bhinna' (different heads have different opinions).

If you ask me (I am an atheist, advaitist, and a person greatly influenced by sciences), I would say the essence of man or any other thing in the universe or the universe itself is 'physical energy' (like in heat, electricity, magnetism, gravity, light, etc.) 'Physical energy' makes up the mass (Higgs Boson still to be found, Boson has been coined after an Indian physicist, Satyendra Nath Bose of Bengal, who along with Einstein postulated its existence).

After death, the human body (and that is the whole of it) disintegrates. Its constituents are absorbed by other things in the environment. When my body is cremated, it will turn into water vapor, carbon-di-oxide, and lime (calcium oxide) to account for the major constituents of human body.

 

[radarmark]

Aupmanyav, by Gosh, your tolerance and inclusiveness are so natural... and rational (scientific). I really believe we are on parallel paths. Inclusiveness of the spirit of Religions and the spirit of science.

My big thing is doubt and uncertainty (a "Doubting Thomas" of the externals of Religion and a "Thomas Bayes" when it comes to science). There is some criteria, called Truth, which I do not believe is obtainable my humans or any other sentient entity. So I qualify all my statements and quantify all my uncertainties in analysis. However, I am not a material monist but have come to hold both a Pragmatic and Process Philosophy viewpoint (and a Process Theology viewpoint therein).

I really enjoy your comments, Friend.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I checked my CP. You are yet not my friend, though I might be looking forward for it. Thank hinduism for my tolerance and inclusiveness.

Keep up hope. Perhaps future generations will find the truth. It is not available at present. Accept that guesses are all that we are eligible to at the moment, whether in science or in philosophy. The doubts and uncertainty will vanish.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Different hindus will give different answers for this.

Is Krishna's Opinion NOT Hindu?

First offer a "Different hindus" opinion on the matter?

When I visit communist countries I teach classes that begin:
"Free-enterprise" & "Democracy" begins when you fork over your money to me ---give me some money ---and then, you will a businessman ---please pay me now your cash ---don't you want to be a businessman. The down side is I have to dissappear for a while and re-locate to a different town each week.

Many defendents express different means of expressing "Free-enterprise" & "Democracy" ---ask the Greeks.

How many people in India are Illiterate? The Majority?
Does that Majority occupy their days discussing philosophy?

Is the problem in India that know one really knows what sanskrit says?
Has India Intellegencia hiding that know one really knows how to read sanskrit?

Is sanskrit beyond decipherment? Is that what is going on?

AC Bhaktivedanta followed age-old tradition of the Swami who publishes His Own Commentary of the Bhagavad-gita ---nothing new there in the literary tradition of the Gita's explanation.

That is why AC Bhaktivedanta titled His Own Commentary of the Bhagavad-gita:
Bhagavad-gita ---AS-IT-IS.

The use of the appendage and any other CLARIFICATIONS that AC Bhaktivedanta made in his Gita ----This is the sort of OBJECTION Aupmanyav points out as problematic ---I disagree. To educate India & the world to India's Heritage requires "NEGATION" and esp and sort of divide and conquer strategem.

Why would a highly educated westerner want to repeat the same mistakes Ringo Starr made?

Why be so close so far?

For the good of the God, what is the word "Aupmanyav" mean?
What is its ethomology? What is its component root parts; ie: prefix+root+Suffix?

Digress away if you prefer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hare-Krishnas, Achintya Bheda-Abheda Advaita, is one of the many respected advaita philosophies in hinduism. Then there is dvaita philosophy of Madhvacharya. Then there are Shaivas (worshipers of Lord Shiva), Shaktas (worshippers of the Mother Goddess), and Smartas (who go according to Vedas). Hinduism is not a monolith, it is not monotheistic, it does not have one book or one God. It gives you the right to think that way but does not allow you to impose your view on others. It is a multi-faceted religion, like a stained glass window. I am happy that it is like that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For the good of the God, what is the word "Aupmanyav" mean? What is its ethomology?

"Aupmanyav" is a patronym which means a descendant of Sage Upamanyu. He was the son of Sage 'Vyaghrapada' (Tiger's or Leopard's feet). The family is an off-shoot of Sage Vasishtha. That is the family (Gotra -lineage) to which I am supposed to belong.

Vasistha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Upamanyu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upamanyu is the writer of a verse in RigVeda dedicated to Soma-Pavamana. His hermitage is mentioned in Srimad Bhagawad Purana. Lord Krishna visited his hermitage and was blessed by the Sage that his son also would be just as handsome as he himself was (Pradyumna). It seems that Sage Upamanyu married a Bactrian lady, Austrakshi. Upamanyu is mentioned as a "Kamboja" (Northern Afghanistan).

The first mention of 'Aupmanyava' (descendants of Sage Upamanyu - Aupamanyava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is in the writings of Yaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yāska), a Sanskrit grammarian and commentator, who lived around 700 BC (obviously, Aupmanyava must have lived prior to him).

"Aupmanyava" too was a Sanskrit grammarian and Vedic commentator. He is known to have commented on why Lord Vishnu was called a "shipivishta" in RigVeda (VII.100.6). "Shipivishta" normally has a bad meaning in Sanskrit (enveloped like private parts, afflicted with a disease, etc).

In the verse, Lord Vishnu is compared to winter sun, which was hidden during the long, cold, and dark Arctic night when the Aryans lived in that region. But it was only one form of Lord Vishnu. When the spring came, sun (Lord Vishnu) appears in his full resplendant glory.

My grandfather, Pandit Bishweshwar Nath Reu (Bishweshwar Nath Reu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), was a Sanskritist and historian. He wrote a smriti, which was published with the name 'Vishweshwara Smriti". He had written two books on Vedas. So, by commenting on hinduism and Vedas, I am only continuing my family tradition which is at least 3,000 years old.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Kim it te Vishno parichakshyam bhūta para yada vavakshe shipivishto asmi;
mā varpo asmada apa ghūha etad yad anyarūpah samithe babhūtha."

What was there to be blamed in thee, O Vishnu, when thou declaredst - I am Shipivishta?
Hide not this form from us, nor keep it secret, since thou didst wear another shape in battle.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN C. Viṣṇu.

You can find the explanation at Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak — The Arctic Home in the Vedas — Chapter 10 (Page 306-7-8)

 

[Bhaktajan II]

a] Is there a 'sutra' on your left shoulder?

b] You are from Vasistha's vamsa?

Yes, I missed the purpose of Puranas. It was social welfare, to show people how to behave in a civil society and live peacefully.


http://www.interfaith.org/forum/question-on-hindu-dharma-14752.html#post269310

VASISTHA-MUNI-DEVA is the MOST INTERESTING PERSONALITY in ALL the VEDAS!

I have unlimited affection for Srila Vasistha deva [son of Lord Brahma]. I look foward to knowing all his biography. He is so endearing ---why?

He re-appears time and again through-out the Veda's Histories.

We know the special Fame Vasishtha & his wife have in the heavens.

Tell me of Sri Vasishtha.

it does not have one book or one God.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Hinduism is not a monolith, it is not monotheistic, it does not have one book or one God.

That is not how the Devas and Brahma-pita-maha think.

Seems the word "Deva" is always considered as plural.

That is because it is. The Devas are cousins and progeny of Lord Brahma pitama.

In the material world we Live together ---but far apart with the devas and davanas.

They don't visit here much . . . IMHO, because, we smell badly. The whole planets IMHO stinks if a Deva were to outsider stepping foot upon terrafirma. Maybe it's just the concominant quality of terrafirma to smell like 'peat'.


Hinduism is monolith,
it is monotheistic,
it has one Library of Literature; and, one God.

What ever differs from your POV is due to a parsed familarity with the whole library.

 

[Aupmanyav]

a] Is there a 'sutra' on your left shoulder?
b] You are from Vasistha's vamsa?
Tell me of Sri Vasishtha.

1. I have discarded the 'sutra' on my left shoulder (my grandpa spent a lot of money while putting it there), but I have not discarded the responsibilities that the 'sutra' entails. I remain a staunch hindu.

2. Yes, I am from Vasishtha vamsa (family), through Vyaghrapada and Upamanyu. I have already given you the Wikipedia link for Vasishtha. Book 7 of the RigVeda is written by my clansmen who have written 1276 verses, that is, one/eighth of the RigVeda.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Achintya Bheda-Abheda, Advaita, is one of the many philosophies in hinduism

Is Krishna's Opinion NOT Hindu?

Is Krishna's opinion just another Hindu's Opinion?

Why not stay with the Conclusion of Vedic Literature, Krishna?

The translation of the Gita known as:
Bhagavad-Gita As-It-Is
by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
is for the Few, the Proud, the Gentleman.
The suffix "As-It-Is" is a shot across the Bow to all intellectuals issued forth by a Vaishnava Acarya from a bonefide sampradaya.

The gauntlet has been thrown down ---the only way to counter A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's Gita As-It-Is is to do all sorts of intellectual subterfuge & "Sanatana-Dharma Obfiscations"

So it's all about Bhagavad-Gita As-It-Is
versus,
"Obfiscations of Sanatana-Dharma"

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Is there anything in my writtings that are akin to "Dis-information about authentic Hinduism"?

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
BTW, has anyone ever asserted that the Rg veda is comprehensible?
Everyone knows the Rg Veda is one long cryptic book. No?

Only via the familarity with the Puranas is it possible to know what all the terse & parsed references in the Rg Veda really signify.

 

[Sam Albion]

Arjuna was a pussy. He was scared to fight, and kill, even though this was his "place", as a ksatriya. Krsna, on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, urged him to do what he had to do. That's how I read it.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Arjuna was a pussy. He was scared to fight, and kill, even though this was his "place", as a ksatriya. Krsna, on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, urged him to do what he had to do. That's how I read it.

True. Him and his 4 brothers too.
But Arjuna's cousin was the real prick.
Arjuna and his 4 bros endured assasination attempt after assasination attempt without fighting back.
It was Arjuna's Older Brother Judasthir, that always insisted on constraint ---and then finally after decades ---on the first day of that civil war he gets all sentimental about the opponents fighting against his being led by his distant relatives and old friends and school mates.

remember:
The Maha-bha rata epic is as thick as a telephone book ---and one chapter is called the "Song of God" aka, Bhagavat gita.

So, there's a whole soap-opera of background events leading to Arjuna's "elderly moment" ---Arjuna actions caused the Gita to be spoken.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The suffix "As-It-Is" is a shot across the Bow to all intellectuals issued forth by a Vaishnava Acarya from a bonefide sampradaya.

I have never contested that. I agree that Hare-Krishna is a bonafide Vaishnava sampradaya (sect). But there are many other Vaishnava sampradayas (sects) - Vishishta-advaita of Sri Ramanujacharya, Dvaita-adviata of Sri Nimbarkacharya, Dvaita of Sri Madhvacharya, and Shuddha-advaita of Sri Vallabhacharya. They also are bonafide. And Vaishnavism is not the only stream in hinduism. There are Shaivas, Shaktas, and Smartas. Apart from that there are atheists like me. You cannot limit hinduism to just one sect; as you cannot limit christianity to catholicism or islam to shiaism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Arjuna was a pussy. He was scared to fight, and kill, even though this was his "place", as a ksatriya. Krsna, on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, urged him to do what he had to do. That's how I read it.

I would not say Arjuna was a pussy. He was a good warrior, among the best, but he was confused, and rightly so. After all, the war required him to kill his grandpa, his teacher, his brother (Karna), cousins (Kauravas), and many friends. But you read it right. Krishna advised Arjuna to look only at what his duty required him to do and go ahead irrespective of all other things.

It is like if you were a policeman, would you arrest your brother if he has committed murder? Yes, it is your duty to do so.

 

[Aupmanyav]

BTW, has anyone ever asserted that the Rg veda is comprehensible? Everyone knows the Rg Veda is one long cryptic book. No?

Only via the familarity with the Puranas is it possible to know what all the terse & parsed references in the Rg Veda really signify.

That is right. Not everything in RigVeda is comprehensible. But puranas do not help. The Aranyakas (forest books) and Brahmanas (ritual books) do. Puranas were written much later and for a very different purpose.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

1. I have discarded the 'sutra' on my left shoulder (my grandpa spent a lot of money while putting it there)

Arjuna said:
O Krishna,
maintainer of the people,
I have heard by disciplic succession
that those who destroy family traditions
dwell always in hell. (Gita 1.43)

Does this not scare the dung out of you?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Arjuna said: O Krishna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession, that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell. (Gita 1.43)
Does this not scare the dung out of you?

No, it does not. Don't do a selective reading of what I write. You have missed the following.

.. but I have not discarded the responsibilities that the 'sutra' entails. I remain a staunch hindu.

The thread is only a token. I have internalized that. It is better than wearing the thread and going against the tradition. And a hindu and a Vaishnava on top of it, should always be civil. Remember Lord Vishnu's reaction when Sage Bhrigu kicked him in the chest to test him. Why is it that I find this missing in you? That is not a Vaishnava tradition.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

So Aupmanyav you confess that you are a brahmana-bandu and/or a yogi-bhrastha?

And you want to uphold authentic-hinduism ---as a penance to redeem your step down?

FYI:
Gita 6.41:
The unsuccessful yogi, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.