By Karthik Vaidhinathan
(CHAKRA) Thank you all for your appreciation and valuable comments regarding my previous write-up What is our “Religion” ? What is “Dharma” ? There were a few objections raised and a few questions posed, and I will attempt to answer them from my perspective through the current write-up.
Objection 1 – I am defining religion in a narrow way by taking only Abrahamic religions into account.
The word religion is a Western concept. As I had discussed in the previous write-up, different civilizations have different experiences in dealing with life and thus the way they see the world is different. Thus, while west came up with the idea of religion, traditionally we did not have this concept. It was only after we came in contact with the west and started understanding the world through the western lens, that we started using the word religion to express our experiences. Since, my attempt has been to “reverse the gaze”, it would not be correct to impose the Indic frameworks onto the word religion. Thus, religion cannot be defined by taking texts like Bhagavad Gita, but should be defined as the Westerners understand it, in order to contrast it with Dharma. And the primary vehicle for western understanding of religion is through Christianity, an Abrahamic religion.
Objection 2 – Dharma is not inherent to Indians. In this day and age, many Indians also do not know what Dharma is.
When one says Dharma is an Indic category, what it means is that the major traditions, as also the common man, associates his experiences and understands them from the framework of Dharma. It is not a claim that Indians are all Dharmic and Westerners are not. It means that Indic Darshanas revolve around this category called Dharma as opposed to religion – the words not being inter-changeable. An Indian is most definitely capable of being Adharmic also. Similarly, a westerner can be dharmic. But the major contrast is that even when a Westerner is performing a dharmic act, he or she will not identify it as dharmic, if they are not exposed to this Indic category. They would instead consider it a noble act or a religious act or good etiquette etc. depending on the context of the act in question, because the Western Civilization does not have an experience paralleling Dharma.
To illustrate the above point, let us consider a simple thought exercise. Let us suppose there exists a normal healthy person who is not colour blind. However, the culture in which he has grown up and his language is such that all the colours that surround him are explained in just five categories – Black, White, Blue, Green and Red. It is not that he cannot differentiate between different colours, but is conditioned by his culture to call them by one of the above five colour words. Thus, the colours Violet and Indigo, though can be clearly distinguished by the said person (let us say he is looking at a rainbow), he might still call them Blue (as different shades of blue), because he does not have distinct words for these two colours in his language.
Objection 3 – Dharma is a Vedic position and those viewpoints that do not accept Vedas as a Pramana should not be considered Darshanas. This is especially the case with self-styuled gurus and god-men who teach their own interpretations or rituals and yoga. These are not Dharma.
I would like to explore here the difference between Dharma and a Dharma claim. Dharma, as I had mentioned in the previous write-up is that which maintains the universal order (Rta). Thus, it is a common thread that binds all existence. However, each one of us could have very different view of what it is. The position that Vedas are the ultimate source of Dharma is the Astika position. However, this position is not given to the Vedas by the Nastika Darshanas like Buddhism and Jainism. However, they do explicitly acknowledge the category called Dharma and give their own view of it. Thus, even when a vaidika considers Veda to be the ultimate source of Dharma, this is still a Dharma claim, just like Buddhism and Jainism have their own Dharma claims. Similarly, the modern gurus who give their own interpretations of Dharma, are also giving their Dharma claims. Ultimately, each school should do a Purva Paksha of these various claims and establish for itself which claims represent Dharma and which do not. This comes out through the process of dialogue.
Objection 4 – Western religions and other ideas like Christinity, Communism, Capitalism etc. cannot be considered darshanas because they do not explain all that a darshana should explain. As examples, a system like communism would not talk about jiva or Ishwara at all, as it is more concerned with other things.
As we have already seen, West does not have an experience equivalent to Dharma and thus does not have a word for it. However, it has, through its own experience, come up with various categories that explain different things. For instance, while Christianity does not have Jiva, Ishwara etc., it does have Soul and God. Now, obviously these categories do not exactly map to each other. Jiva is not Soul nor is Ishwara God. Similarly, some of the ideas like Capitalism and Communism do not aim at expounding all that a traditional Darshana does, but take only a limited aspect of public life, namely, distribution of wealth and means of production and have their own models for them.
My calling these Darshanas does not mean I consider their truth claims valid. Nor is it my claim that they explain all that a traditional Darshana does. However, from the perspective of Purva Paksha, it is essential that all that needs to be discussed be brought on the discussion table first. Then one argues them out and validates and invalidates their truth claims. To say they are not fit to be called Darshanas would be to pre-maturely take them off the radar and the much needed Purva Paksha of these ideas would not happen.
As an example, I would consider the text Sarva Darshana Sangraha by Swami Vidyaranya. Swami was an Advaitin. Advaita considers six Pramanas (Pratyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, Arthapatti, Anupalabdhi and Shabda) as valid. In contrast, the Charavaka system uses only the Pratyaksha Pramana. Being such, Charavaka system would not have had ideas like Jiva, Ishwara etc. It also would not have had ideas like svarga. Thus from an Advaitic perspective, this would be an incomplete viewpoint. However, Swami Vidyaranya still takes this non-vedic and incomplete viewpoint as a Darshana in Sarva Darshana Sangraha. This, I think, is the proper Purva Paksha position to take, even if the viewpoint being considered is incomplete or Nastika. Their incompleteness should be brought out as part of the arguments against their position and not used them to disqualify as a Darshana itself.
Objection 5 – Inclusion of Dharmic darshanas like Buddhism and Jainism alongside non-Dharmic western and other ideas collectively under Nastika darshanas
This is something I agree that needs clarification. I do agree that traditional Nastika Darshanas of India like Buddhism and Jainism are markedly different from the Western and other non-Indic ideas. The difference is primarily in their recognition of Dharma as a category. Thus, even being Nastika, they are Dharmic. I used the Astika and Nastika classification because it is a traditional one. And when it is extended for modern times, naturally the Western viewpoints or Islamic viewpoints would fall under the Nastika category. But we can certainly categorize them in two different ways:
First way would be to do it the way I did, and then further divide the Nastika Darshanas into two sub-groups, one that recognizes Dharma and another that does not. Buddhism, Jainism etc. would come in the first sub-group.
Second way would be to do a first level classification of schools that recognize Dharma and those that do not. In the former, we would have both Astika Darshanas and Nastika ones like Buddhism. And in the latter group, we would have the Western and Islamic ideas. Then the first group can be further classified as Astika and Nastika.
I think the type of categorization we choose would depend on what we want to achieve through the classification. It is similar to how a tomato gets botanically classified as a fruit, but culinarily as a vegetable.
There were also two questions that I would like to clarify.
Question 1 – What are Dharma and Sanatana dharma? Are they same or different?
Both are the same. Here, the usage Sanatana Dharma does not mean there is something like a non-Sanatana Dharma. It is just added as a description of the nature of Dharma.
Question 2 – We often hear Bauddha Dharma, Jaina Dharma etc. What does dharma mean in this context?
As I had explained, there is only one Dharma, the Sanatana Dharma. And different darshanas try to explain it in their own way. The above usages mean Dharma according to the Bauddhas and Dharma according to the Jainas. It is their viewpoint, just as the Vaidikas would have Vaidika Dharma.
Prashant Parikh says
Wonderful article, thank you. This helped clear a lot of my doubts
Girdhar says
@Karthik, I’ve been observing your posts. It’s a nice writeup. But here are the things one needs to understand before he equates or finds similarities between western thoughts and Indian philosophies.
Since you mentioned Rajiv Malhotra in your previous article, then you must be knowing that Christianity is just a mix of previous green and hellenistic models where they keep upgrading the whole religion with new and fancy terms. Moreover, Soul and God in western worldview are not the same or even close to the terms in Indian philosophies. Actually, they are contrary. The devas in Indian philosophies are part of the same ultimate reality. And various happenings in the universe are because of the intermingling of these forces of the nature which we call devas/devis. They are both within and outside and everything is bhraman where creator and the created are not isolated. They are one where creator is neither masculine nor feminine nor sexless. Refer Rigvedic hymn of creation and Manduka Upanishad for start-ups and perhaps Gita for more. Whereas, the Christian/abrahamic god is an isolated entity, a male chauvinist, often presented as a creator who is playing dice with his creations. In Christian worldview, people are born in a sinful world and Jesus died because of their sins. I really don’t know what sin a newborn baby has committed though. Whereas, according to the Indian scriptures, people are born from the state of sat-chit-anand (truth-consciousness-bliss where all three are the same actually in their highest order) and dissolve into the same state when the physical body perishes, where in between they stay in the world of maya where achieving sat-chit-anand is again a goal.
Next, there is no such thing as bauddha dharma, jain dharma, or a hindu dharma. Can we state something like Islamic dharma where the whole term becomes an oxymoron? Did Buddha say to term something like Bauddha dharma? But, yes dharma has its levels. For Karna, it was his dharma for friendship to fight for his friend Duryodhan, Bhishma has his dharma towards Hastinapur, Dronacharya had his dharma as a teacher for Hastinapur. From their own understanding of dharma they were right. But Krishna did try to convince them to side with highest order of dharma i.e the truth and from that level they i.e Karna, Bhishma, Dronacharya sided with adharma.
The dharma of Pakistani soldiers is to fight for their mainland and the same reflects with the soldiers of India. Moreover, the shrutis teach questioning of highest order e.g Rigvedic hymn of creation, neti neti, Gita 3.42, 18.63 and more. Anything which teaches questioning is the first step for the truth and hence there is no such thing a bauddha dharma or Jain dharma. A true teacher would rather want his disciple to question and no blindly follow and so I’m sure that even Buddha or Mahavira would rather smile on terms like Bauddha dharma or Jain dharma.
Anyways, good work!
SB says
Karthikji: Well-written post, a nice follow-up to the previous one. I found your arguments in Objection 4 particularly interesting. I hope this interactive, exchange-based purva-paksha continues.
M Raghavan says
I have some additional points for you to consider Mr. Karthik:
1. “The word religion is a Western concept. As I had discussed in the previous write-up, different civilizations have different experiences in dealing with life and thus the way they see the world is different. Thus, while west came up with the idea of religion, traditionally we did not have this concept.”
Agreed, religion is a Western word. But, one need only look to the Wikipedia definition to understand how this word applies as much to Hinduism as to any other spiritual tradition: “Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.” By this, our Sanathana Dharma, as well as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. are all religions.
2. “Western Civilization does not have an experience paralleling Dharma.”
Both you and Mr. Malhotra, whom you cite as inspiration, present a rather ambiguous understanding of dharma. In Vedic thinking, dharma is of two distinct types (there is a third, but it would beyond this discussion to present it), sAmanya and loukika. sAmanya dharmam is that which is required by one’s varna and jAthi; it includes such things as the performance of nitya and naimittika karmas as prescribed. Loukika dharma is dharma related to getting along with society – honesty, hard work, truthfulness, gratitude, sharing, caring, and so on. Both these types of dharma are clearly defined and prescribed in Vedas.
Western traditions also have similar ideas; and in fact, they are much more pronounced in these cultures. From the Code of Hammurabi to the Sermon on the Mount, there are clear ethical ideas in Western thought. They are also ritualistic sides too, such as Judaism’s Kashruth and Shabbat. They are certainly not the same dharma as in Vedas, but to say that, because of this, the West could not relate to dharma would be totally inaccurate.
Of course, we Hindus would like to say Western notions of right and wrong are inferior to dharma because they are motivated out of fear of punishment; but I would go to the extent of saying that perhaps India and Indians would be better today if they had something to fear.
3. “The position that Vedas are the ultimate source of Dharma is the Astika position. However, this position is not given to the Vedas by the Nastika Darshanas like Buddhism and Jainism. However, they do explicitly acknowledge the category called Dharma and give their own view of it.”
Once again, you give a very ambiguous tone to dharma. Dharma is not open to interpretation; one can choose to follow it or, as is the case of most Hindus today, choose simply to ignore it.
4. “First way would be to do it the way I did, and then further divide the Nastika Darshanas into two sub-groups, one that recognizes Dharma and another that does not. Buddhism, Jainism etc. would come in the first sub-group.”
Again, you are making dharma far too ambiguous. I have already attempted to describe dharma per Vedas above. This is a direct quote from a Buddhist web site on what they call Buddha dharma:
“This Dhamma that I have attained is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.” Jaina dharma is a lot less subtle, but it speaks of virtue as an ideal, not a required condition.
The contradiction is obvious; dharma in Vedic thought is not sublime, it is practical. It is clearly designed to maintain societal order and harmony with the forces of nature, whom we have dubbed gods. It is not an option or some spiritual path. It is, as one Acharya has taught me, how human beings should behave in order to be human.
To me, keeping dharma ambiguous is the biggest vice of Hinduism in the present day. While we have our rituals, our mythologies and our superstitions, little has been done to preserve ethics. One can only be reminded of Valmiki’s own question in the opening passages of Sri Ramayanam:
kOn vasmin sAmpratam lOkE gunAvan kashcha vIryavAn
dharmagnascha kritagnascha satyavAkya dhridavratA?
I can only wonder the same.
Girdhar says
Dear Raghavan,
I don’t think wikipedia or quoting a site is an ideal source of reference, but rather quoting a primary source of reference i.e the shrutis/smritis or any other scripture.
1. In the west science is seen contrary to the western religions as the freedom of speech and enquiry into the nature is obscured. By the same logic, none of the Indian philsophies tagged by the westerners as isms can be called as religions as all the Indian philsophies promote highest order of questioning.
Lucklily, we don’t have any isms for the teachings of Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Dayanand Saraswati, Shri Shri Ravi Shankar as we have for Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Govind Singh etc. Moreover, the Vedic Rishis were not even interested in name or fame.
Belief is often practiced when the spirit of questioning is not prevalent. But different upanishads written by different rishis, puranas and the vedas expound the same reality in different ways. There is no belief system here, but simply an understanding of the same truth or reality through their own high frame of consciousness and understanding which is to be achieved by “destroying the asuras” like lust, greed, ego, hatred etc.
Similarly, we see Tantras where the concept of shiva and shakti resemble the same understanding of Vedic soma, Indra, agni and Vishnu. Had there been a common belief system like in the west, then Indians would be following the same boring monotheism. But the Indian thought is neither monotheistic nor polytheist nor atheistic, but transcends these inferior divisions and standard categorizations set by the west. Logically speaking, one cannot call infinite as one or many. Similarly zero cannot be defined as one or many. But the truth is indeed one and transcends all the discussed inferior frameworks set by the west.
But many Indians have indeed blindly accepted the taggings done by the west and divided themselves under the tags of Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism etc. If the gayatri mantra itself is a part of Indian science, philosophy and history, then how can we call it Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist practice? But Gayatri Mantra is chanted by everyone in India be it Buddhist, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus etc other than the followers of abrahamic faiths.
2. Something to fear often causes attachment to the object of fear. But the Indian thought revolves around detachment to transcend from that attachment and understand the object from a 360 degree view. This attachment only blinds the person and moreover, creates biases. Many adherents of Islam have a strong hatred towards other people. Many fanatic Vaishnav’s dislike calling Shiva as equal to Vishnu because they are stuck to the lower understanding of these concepts and reduced them to an abrahamic viewpoint. Same goes for the fanatic Shaivites and Shaktas. So I disagree when you state “Indians would be better today if they had
something to fear”.
It is this fear only because of which the corrupted bhrahmins created superstitions and reduced higher Vedic understanding to earthly rites and rituals. (Refer Secret of Vedas by Aurobindo for more understanding)
Higher knowledge can only be understood through devotion (bhakti), detachment etc. Fear is only an obstacle which can never let the mind be still, concentrate and expand!
more..
http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion
http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/kaliyuga.html
M Raghavan says
Please allow me to correct my Romanized Sanksrit from above:
konvasmin sAmpratam.loke gunavAn kasca vIryavAn
dharmajnasca krtajnasca satyavAkyo drdhavratah
It is faith that the once our people had a vision of such a noble Human Being can only bring hope.
M Raghavan says
Dear Girdhar,
In response to your comments:
1. Lucklily, we don’t have any isms for the teachings of Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Dayanand Saraswati, Shri Shri Ravi Shankar as we have for Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Govind Singh etc. Moreover, the Vedic Rishis were not even interested in name or fame.
None of the neo-Hiandu teachers you mention studied Vedas in a pATTasAla; so they cannot be considered proper representatives of Vaidika sampradAyam (no “ism” intended).
With regards to the rishis, their goal was betterment of society as a whole. If they didn’t gain name or fame, then how do we know that Valmiki Bhagavan wrote Sri Ramayana, Vyasa Maharishi wrote Bhagavatha Puranam, or that Vishwamitra was the Acharya to Sri Rama?
2. There is no belief system here, but simply an understanding of the same truth or reality through their own high frame of consciousness and understanding which is to be achieved by “destroying the asuras” like lust, greed, ego, hatred etc.
The Chandogya and Manduka Upanishads describe that kAma, krOdham, ahankAram, etc. are products of the manas, which has been conditioned through pUrva janma karma. No living beingcan be above them or beyond them. Therefore “asura” must be taken in its proper, literal context. Sura is one who noble or good, implying one that is following dharma as defined in Sastras. An “asura” is one does not follow “Vaidikam”.
3. But many Indians have indeed blindly accepted the taggings done by the west and divided themselves under the tags of Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism etc. If the gayatri mantra itself is a part of Indian science, philosophy and history, then how can we call it Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist practice? But Gayatri Mantra is chanted by everyone in India be it Buddhist, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus etc other than the followers of abrahamic faiths.
Gayathri Mantra is considered to be the highest of mantras in Vedic life. It is to be traditionally passed on from father to son of certain communities through the sacred ritual called upanAyanam. It is meant to be shared by no one and chanted by no one other than those who have been initiated into the sandhya vandanam, which involves recitation of it by proper swaram. This is mentioned in all 4 of the Veda sAkhas.
But, over the past 40 years, thanks to the avaidika teachers whom you mention above, this most cherished rahasyam has been diluted to a mere bhajan and is being chanted by one and all.
4. Something to fear often causes attachment to the object of fear. But the Indian thought revolves around detachment to transcend from that attachment and understand the object from a 360 degree view. This attachment only blinds the person and moreover, creates biases. Many adherents of Islam have a strong hatred towards other people. Many fanatic Vaishnav’s dislike calling Shiva as equal to Vishnu because they are stuck to the lower understanding of these concepts and reduced them to an abrahamic viewpoint. Same goes for the fanatic Shaivites and Shaktas. So I disagree when you state “Indians would be better today if they had something to fear”.
Perhaps you are not familiar with Garuda Puranam, part of which clearly lays out the punishments that Yama confers on those who break dharma in their earthly life? It is more fearful than Dante’s Inferno.
Vaishnavam, Shaivam (no use of “ism” either) and Shaktam have logical arguments based on Veda, Upanishads, Itihasa and Purana on why their concept of the Divine is Supreme. They hold positions based on pramAnam, a logical idea based on established empirical truths, not on what you think is an “Abrahamic standpoint”. (Please capitalize the word; Abraham is a person’s name)
5. It is this fear only because of which the corrupted bhrahmins created superstitions and reduced higher Vedic understanding to earthly rites and rituals. (Refer Secret of Vedas by Aurobindo for more understanding).
I have perused the work. Aurobindo was not qualified to become a dvija through upanAyanam. Therefore his bias against Brahmins. What you think are superstitions based on earthly rites and rituals are Vaidika dharmas, established through centuries of tradition to be of value in people’s lives. They are called Acharana in Sanskrit, something to be practiced to improve oneself; they are as natural as brushing one’s teeth. 20th century self-proclaimed gurus did not properly learn their significance and hence turned them into superstitions, as well as allowing the laity to create superstitions of their own.
Also, with regards to detachment and attachment, exactly what is it that you think we should detach from and attach to? We all fear death; but do we attach ourselves to it? Very few of us would even like to think about it.
Girdhar says
Dear Raghavan,
1. I didn’t know one needs to study in a pattashala to need a certification to be a ‘representative’ of Vaidika sampradyam. One of the Hindu teachers i.e Shri Aurobindo which you tagged as neo-Hindu teacher was more than a “vaidika representative”. Being a sanskrit scholar, writing more than 20 volumes and meditating for more than 30 years, he not only enlightened about true aspects of the Vedic teachings, the teachings which had been obscured by many of the so called “Vaidik representatives” during bhrahminism, but also integrated the aspects of tantras, vedas, upanishads, puranas to show how each of them revolve around the same ultimate reality, the same truth which are percieved by the people of lower intellect as contradictory.
Next, I didn’t state that the rishis “they didn’t gain name or fame,” but “were not even interested in name or fame”. Please read carefully. Most of the westerners have a habit of copyrighting and marketing their research, but the vedic rishis who had a direct experience in their highest state of consciousness were never interested in name or fame! Did Buddha say to create Buddhism, did Vishwamitra say to create something called “Hinduism”? But the same cannot be said about the abrahamic faiths which circle around the sorry state of fear!
2. “The Chandogya and Manduka Upanishads describe that kAma, krOdham, ahankAram, etc. are products of the manas, which has been conditioned through pUrva janma karma. No living beingcan be above them or beyond them”
Please find me verses from Chandogya Upanishad and Manduka Upanishad which says “No living being can be above them or beyond them” as you claim. Sura and asura are the parts of the same prakriti which has her another form of maya.
**On the other hand the demons who opposed them, are all powers of division and limitation, Coverers, Tearers, Devourers, Confiners, Dualisers, Obstructers, as their names indicate, powers that work against the free and unified integrality of the being. These Vritras, Panis, Atris, Rakshasas, Sambara, Vala, Namuchi, are not Dravidian kings and gods, as the modern mind with its exaggerated historic sense would like them to be; They represent the struggle between the powers of the higher Good and the lower desire** (Secret of Vedas)
It is this maya which sets in the lust, greed, anger etc. Thus, understanding the both i.e vidya and avidya, leads to the understanding of the truth just like we needed both devas and asuras in the churning of soma.
But, in the Upanishads we clearly find..
“Than the senses the objects of sense are higher; and higher
than the objects of sense is the Mind; and higher than the
Mind is the faculty of knowledge; and than that is the Great
Self higher.” (Katha Upanishad)
The same is reflected in Gita verse 3.42 and Gita also teaches us that by achieving the highest goal which is called as purusha or bhrahman as per other Upanishads, we are can indeed be “beyond them, the conditioning through purva janma karma”. It is this consciousness which when merged with or raised to purusha, or shiva-shakti union as per tantras brings immortality. (Like I said please refer Secret of Vedas by Aurobindo for a detailed understanding). Please read chapter 8 of Gita for a brief understanding. “Achieving me/attaining me/ or focussing on me” simply refer to the highest state of consciousness, similarly like shakti keeps on trying relentlessly to achieve Shiva who is sitting on Mount Kailash which is a metaphor of the human body and Shiva being a metaphor of perfect or supreme consciousness. It is similar to the Vedic hymns where agni (will) and Indra (mind/intellect) are one the first gods to drink(achieve) soma (bliss).
3. “Gayathri Mantra is considered to be the highest of mantras in Vedic life. It is to be traditionally passed on from father to son of certain communities through the sacred ritual called upanAyanam. It is meant to be shared by no one and chanted by no one other than those who have been initiated into the sandhya vandanam, which involves recitation of it by proper swaram. This is mentioned in all 4 of the Veda sAkhas.”
Please find me the vedic hymns from all the 4 vedas like you claim i.e “It is meant to be shared by no one and chanted by no one other than those who have been initiated into the sandhya vandanam”. Please find me verses other than from the works of christian missionaries like Griffith, Bloomsfield, Max Muller etc.
If time (kaal) is eternal as per Vedas, then how can there be any emphasis on “sandhya” or “suryodaya”? Did Rishis who did their tapa for years break it for sandhya to arrive?
“But, over the past 40 years, thanks to the avaidika teachers whom you mention above, this most cherished rahasyam has been diluted to a mere bhajan and is being chanted by one and all. ”
I think calling or judging anyone without even reading their works is an insult to the spirit of a fruitful discussion. Vivekananda, Saraswati and Aurobindo which you have reduced to by calling as “avaidika teachers” have been greatest assets to the mother India who have not only helped remove a lot of superstitions but took the Indian knowledge to those who never had access to it. I would request you to research a little more before judging impulsively!
4. “Perhaps you are not familiar with Garuda Puranam, part of which clearly lays out the punishments that Yama confers on those who break dharma in their earthly life? It is more fearful than Dante’s Inferno.”
You are treating Yama like an abrahamic god without even understanding the metaphor behind. Whoever breaks dharma is indeed cursed by the karmic cycle! Please read Gita which state the same concept.
Moreover, it is this fear which you promote impulsively which is the cause of most of the chaos in this present age i.e Kaliyug. The superstitions, resulting from bhrahminism and further aggravated by christian missionaries who mistranslated, are rampant in the society. People have even setup days for different gods to please them, the devas which have been given an abrahamic angle due to “fear” and ignorance. What is Vedic and what is dharmic, is not being sought. But people, because of fear, are getting stuck deeper and deeper due to that web of Maya risen out of fear and attachment.
You cannot call a person Vedic by his tags. A modern hindu who drinks and commits crime is hardly Vedic, but a muslim who is not attached to Quran and closer to his self and detached to his desires, can be more Vedic than a hindu whose mind is not controlled and is committing the earthly rites and rituals “casually” to bring wealth or a hindu who is cutting trees (disrespecting nature) to fulfull his greeds and desires i.e to achieve laxmi (or wealth).
5. “I have perused the work. Aurobindo was not qualified to become a dvija through upanAyanam”
Your statement itself shows how much you have read. Most of your arguments reflect the history and opinions of people. Aurobindo never had a bias against bhrahmins. Infact he clearly points out the essence of varna in his works. But I guess you read between the lines where expounds on bhrahminism. Bhrahminism is not the same as a “bias against bhrahmins”.
Please read the Secret of Vedas and Kena and other Upanishad by Aurobindo. Please don’t fall for the tags that other people of lower intellect than you have given him. I’m also not asking to blindly believe his works!
Girdhar says
Just like Vidya is needed to destroy avidya, similarly a dharmic path is needed to break from karmic cycle. It would be absurd to say that due to fear of being in avidya people will opt out of it. Just like Vidya cannot be approached through fear, similarly dharma cannot be espoused by fear. A soldier will do his dharmic duty as a kshatriya. There is no element of fear in it but only fearlessness and bravery!
M Raghavan says
Mr. Girdhar,
It is amazing how much we Hindus would like to dabble in speculation rather than simply presenting facts. Here are my responses to your four counterpoints:
1. There are four levels of Vedic scholars among those qualified to study Vedas at this level – namely, the Brahmins. They are Acharya, upanyAsaka, adhyApaka, and archaka. Each requires several years of study under scholars to achieve. And for your information, certificates have only been presented recently so that people could put these in resume’s for jobs overseas.
Given that fact, none of the 20th Century scholars, all of whom were British educated, could qualify to be categorized as one of these four than you and I could say we are gurus. At best, they can be considered to be intellectuals who chose to present apologetic explanations for Vedic theology and ritual such that they would not be pooh-poohed upon by British aristocracy.
2. I am student of an Acharya representing centuries of Vedic study. My only remittance is to present what I have learned from him to the best possible way that I can. As such, my quoting anything would be moot. However, your quoting from “Secrets of the Vedas”, however, which was written by a non-Brahmin, British educated, intellectual is just as moot.
Sanskrit scripture is literal language, especially when it comes to scriptural text. When Krishna speaks of “Me” in the Gita, He speaks of Himself. We should act knowing that both the action and the doer of action are, ultimately, Krishna Himself. If He had meant He as a metaphor for Brahman, He would have said so.
Where is the pramAnam – the logical build – for saying that agni – fire, Indra – thunder and lightning, and soma – an ephedrine-laced herb tea, are metaphors for something other than what the Vedas say they are? Even the Upanishads do not consider them to be metaphors.
3. Once again, I leave quoting passage and verse to your expertise; I am not a evangelist. I am merely quoting what I have been taught – not have read. And according to that, I can state for a fact that “tapa” in Sanskrit is contemplation; not standing on one leg in meditation. Note that the Rishis were following Vedic dharma, and as such, did indeed perform trikAla sandhya vandanam. In Sri Ramayana, Vishwamitra Mahamuni awakened Sri Rama by stating the time, “…pUrva sandhya pravarthathE…”, which Lord Rama did Himself three times a day. This is confirmed by passages in Sri Ramayana.
Regarding my research, I have been studying “Hinduism” for 30 years, 20 of which has been under the tutelage of Acharyas. Prior to my studying under them, I spent hours rummaging through my father’s voluminous library of books – reading about the life and teachings of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. Ramana Maharishi, Swamy Sivananda, to name just a few. It is only after I began my learning under qualified Acharyas, who also teach to every community in every nook and cranny of the world, that I found answers, and now can engage in lucid discussion with Westerners without having to put down their religions.
Based on this, I am of the contention that the corruption and apathy rampant in India today can be traced back to the unqualified opinions of self-proclaimed gurus and god-men who were only interested in getting into the good books of pseudo-intellectuals and misguided hippies by peaking of Maya, self-realization and other such apologetic arguments for Vedic thought. It is these lay opinions which has furthered superstition, as well as augmenting and justifying the bribing, cheating, blackmailing and backstabbing for which India is infamous. May I add that such amorality and apathy has now made it virtually impossible for expatriate Indians to acculturate themselves to what are, in large part, the honest, hard-working values that have served as the backbone of the “Abrahmic” societies that you devalue.
I will forgo on addressing any more questions, as I think I have made my point.
Girdhar says
Dear Raghavan,
Please don’t mind, but the only point you have put across is glorifying about your “ÿears of research” and your acharyas. First you stated about “Sandhya vandanam”in all the “four Vedas” and when I asked to cite verses to back your claim, you are talking about Ramayana. Even if Ram did “sandhya vandanam”, it doesn’t mean that chanting of the mantra is forbidden during surodaya. Like I asked Did Rishis who did their tapa for years break it for sandhya to arrive to do “sandhya vandanam”?
I’m rather amazed how you reduced Krishna to a abrahamic God by stating Krishna was talking about someone called “Krishna”.
Of the eleven Rudras I am Siva and of Yaksas and Raksasas I am Kuvera the treasurer of the demigods, of the eight Vasus I am Agni the fire god and of mountains Meru. (10.23)
Of the Daityas I am Prahlada, of measurements I am time, of all the animals the lion and of birds I am Garuda. (10.30)
Of the twelve Adityas Iam Visnu, of all luminaries the radiant sun, of the seven Maruts I am Marici and of the constellations I am the moon. (10.21)
Of letters I am the first letter A, and of compound words the dual word, I am eternal ever flowing time and the four-faced Brahma. (10.33)
So can’t you see that Krishna is only educating Arjun about his true nature which is nameless, formless and eternal. That “his”, Ï or Me” is indeed the bhrahman or the ultimate reality. How does it matter what the name is?
Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti. This same description is given by the devi shakti in devi bhagavad Purana, for Shiva in Shiva purana, Upanishads as “That”.
If you still think Krishna is talking about someone called Krishna which you have reduced to a abrahamic god, then..
Fools deride me in My divine human form, unable to comprehend My supreme nature as the Ultimate Controller of all living entities. (9.11)
Thus, that I and Me as in Gita is a part of everything and resides in everything. So how can you still isolate that Ï and Me?
The Vedic knowledge presents metaphors as cryptic riddles. Similar is the case with Gita, where the divine Song i.e bhagavad-Geet has been sung by Krishna presenting the divine knowledge. Don’t mind but your statement “”If He had meant He as a metaphor for Brahman, He would have said so.”, is rather childish.
Indian education has large mix of metaphors and riddles even in the Upanishads e.g Mundaka Upanishads.
“Even the Upanishads do not consider them to be metaphors”
Upanishads are not the Vedas but a more direct and brief explanation of the nature of ultimate reality. But where do you think or have read that Upanishads do not consider them to be metaphors?
Lord Krishna said: I instructed the imperishable science of uniting the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness unto the sun-god Surya, who taught it unto his sonVaisvastu Manu, who related it unto his son King Iksvaku. In this way the saintly kings came to know this science received by disciplic succession; after a great duration of time this science of uniting the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness became lost in this world, O conqueror of the enemy. (4.1-2)
Please tell in which category of Acharya, upanyAsaka, adhyApaka, and archaka” would you put that the ultimate reality, Sun God Surya, Vaisvastu Manu, King Iksvaku?
Dear Raghavan, please don’t mind but it seems there is a lot of blind following and conditioning in your ideas which makes you judge about Aurobindo, certifications for Acharya, essence of time for mantras in this timeless and eternal bhrahman.
I’m giving you verses straight from the shrutis, but you still haven’t given verses
– from all the 4 upanishads about “sandhya vandanam”as you claim
– verses from Chandogya Upanishad and Manduka Upanishad which says “No living being can be above them or beyond them” i.e pUrva janma karma as you stated.
If you still want to assume and judge on Aurobindo blindly, then you are free to do so. But I wonder why you are showcasing your certifications, your gurus or for how long you have been studying Hinduism. It kind of makes me remember Daksh from “devo ke dev mahadev”. But, you have been ignoring the intellectual part i.e citing verses and discussing on the metaphors. It is obvious that you really haven’t read Secret of Vedas or kena and other Upanishads by Aurobindo!
The pramAnam – the logical build that you seek is concentrated and abundant in Aurobindo’s works!
“Secrets of the Vedas”, however, which was written by a non-Brahmin, British educated, intellectual is just as moot”
Aurobindo was indeed a Brahmin by karma, british educated yes, but also a Sanskrit scholar who translated many passages from Vedas, many of the Upanishads and Gita completely with 30 years of meditation. Its upto you to continue your casual judgments. I do agree that you have indeed made your point!
mraghavan says
It is getting quite interesting how you keep wanting to have the last word. Facts and assumptions are two different things.
“I’m giving you verses straight from the shrutis, but you still haven’t given verses”
You are not quoting from shruthi. You are quoting from Bhagavad Gita, which is upabrahmam. And you are quoting from a book called “Secret of the Vedas” written by Sri Aurobindo, which is a book. And, what you are wanting me to quote from is called “sAstram”. Shruthi is something which is heard.
“Please tell in which category of Acharya, upanyAsaka, adhyApaka, and archaka” would you put that the ultimate reality, Sun God Surya, Vaisvastu Manu, King Iksvaku?”
Now who is being childish? The sun is a star, Manu Prajapatti is the product of creation that cannot be known, King Ikshvaku was a wise kshatriya king; and I have no idea what is meant by “ulitmate reality”.
“If you still think Krishna is talking about someone called Krishna which you have reduced to a abrahamic god, then”
First, Abraham proclaimed only one God; so it would be ridiculous to Jews to speak of an “abrahamic god” and a “Hindu one”. Second, Abraham said that God could not take form. Krishna is an AvathAra of Narayana, The Supreme Being. I could not reduce Him to anything, because there is no way to do so.
“Aurobindo was indeed a Brahmin by karma, british educated yes, but also a Sanskrit scholar who translated many passages from Vedas, many of the Upanishads and Gita completely with 30 years of meditation. Its upto you to continue your casual judgments.”
Karma does not make one a brahmin; it is a burden of one’s birth.
“Dear Raghavan, please don’t mind but it seems there is a lot of blind following and conditioning in your ideas which makes you judge about Aurobindo, certifications for Acharya, essence of time for mantras in this timeless and eternal bhrahman.”
Dear Girdhar, the same can be said about your blind loyalty to Aurobindo, your TV serial notion that Rishis spent 24 hours a day standing on one leg reciting mantras by rote, and your nebulous views about something you call Brahman.
It is obvious that you really haven’t read Secret of Vedas or kena and other Upanishads by Aurobindo!
Aurobindo wrote “The Secret of the Vedas”. I was under the impression that it was the rishis who wrote Kenopanishad and other Upanishads.
“The Vedic knowledge presents metaphors as cryptic riddles.”
Only to those who end Sanskrit words abruptly without completing them (dharm, Arjun, Ram).
Girdhar says
Dear Raghavan,
I thought you understood the basic understanding of shruti and why it is called heard. It is based on the field of consciousness or chakras as many call it. The term shruti comes from the sanskrit word shru which means hearing. It is not an ordinary or a sense level hearing, nor it has to do anything with the material rites and rituals. It is the experience or the knwoledge of the highest order experienced in the highest state of consciousness where the time and space cease to exist, where past, present and the future become all one. What is experienced is the eternal, infinite, omnipresent, indistinguishible reality called sat-chit-ananda i.e truth,consciousness,bliss which are one and the same in their highest order. It is because of this ‘hearing’ or understanding that rishis were able to view into the future as well and write bhavishya purana and kalki purana. Perhaps, this is something that your Vedic guru never taught you?
You are treating Surya, Manu from a material level and quite abrahamic again. If you really think that the Surya is just a “star”, agni just a material fire and Manu a product of creation, then why do we have so many hymns dedicated to surya and agni? Even a wise kshatriya king can expound Vedic knowledge. So where is the certification that you are repeatedly stressing on? Do you have the same western understanding of materialism and abrahamic view that the ancient Indians worshipped stars, bulls, fire, cows?
The seven great sages: Maràci, Atri, Aëgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu and Vasithha in earlier ages, also the four Manus: Svayambhuva, Svarochita, Raivata and Uttama all manifested from mental impulses originating from Me; populated all existing progeny in the material universes (BG 10.6)
So please enlighten me who certified these rishis?
This Self is not won by exegesis, nor by brain-power, nor by much learning of Scripture. Only by him whom It chooses can It be won; to him this Self unveils its own body. (manduka Upanishad 3.2.3)
He who is one and without hue, but has ordained manifoldly many hues by the Yoga of his Force and holds within himself all objects, and in Him the universe dissolves in the end, that Godhead was in the beginning. May He yoke us with a good and bright understanding. That alone is the fire and That the sun and That the wind and That too the moon; That is the Luminous, That the Brahman, That the waters, That the Father and Lord of creatures. (Svetasvatara Upanishad, 4.1-2)
“Ekam sat vipra bahuda bahudanti”
Like I said, the Indian scriptures hold the ultimate truth in various creativities. DIfferent sages all it by different names. It is pronounced as “I and Me” in Gita, same in devi bhagvada Purana, “That” in Upanishads. Different thoughts pronouncing the same truth. It is displayed even in the idols where the nataraj (nrtraj) reflects the dance of truth or dharma over evil where the killed demon identifies the demonic sides within the humans, different hands manifestation and unmanifestation, the damroo identifies the dance of energy etc in the same way Vedas use heavy metaphors and riddles which are shown even in the Gita. But perhaps you need “explicit mention” just as in the case of metaphors where the idol has to say, “This resembles something higher”!
You talk a lot about Abraham, both in words and indirectly through arguments, but yes Abrahamn said God could not take a form and that is precisely where it fails. It treats God as an isolated entity, where the divine according to the Indian scriptures is eternal, all pervading, both unmanifest and manifest, purusha and prakriti, shiva and shakti, formless yet taking so many forms, nameless yet called by various names etc.
Within and without all living entities, that Ultimate truth is stationary as well as mobile; on account of its being subatomic, that Ultimate Truth is incomprehensible and is far away yet also very near. Without division that Ultimate Truth appears to be divided among all the various living entities and is to be known as the preserver of all living entities and the destroyer as well as the creator. (BG 13.16-17)
Now, if you think “Karma does not make one a brahmin; it is a burden of one’s birth. “, then I guess yoou fall in the same brahminism which distorts the karma based Varna system to birth based cast system. I guess people hooked to Tv-serials also know that now through the story of satyakam Jabala that they show in Upanishad Ganga!
Anyways, like I stated, please read my lines vary carefully. I clearly stated in one of my replies that “I’m also not asking to blindly believe his (Aurobindo’s) works!” and yet you assume about my blind loyalty to Aurobindo. I use Aurobindo only because he comes closest to my understanding of Upanishads and Gita and thanks to his “British English education”, he does have the power to give the closest and beautiful words in almost the same poetic style that is available in the Sanskrit scriptures. I state him not because I blindly follow him, but only because I appreciate his vast vocablury and clear cut logic, creativity and understanding in one package, because of which he has even become a standard in western universities. The works of Ken Wilber on matters of consciousness are directly based on his explanations of consciousness which is further based on Vedas. I as a student of sanskrit appreciate his sound sanskrit knowledge as well, a sanskrit scholar that he was which you missed entirely while judging him as an avaidic teacher.
BTW, the various quotes from Bhagavada Gita that I used here are not from Aurobindo’s works!
Some more nice verses for you. Perhaps you can read them during sandhya vandanam.
The residents of all the worlds, O Arjuna, from Brahmas world the most evolved material planet in all the trillions of universes, downwards are subject to the cycle of repeated birth and death; but by taking refuge of Me, O Arjuna, repeated rebirth ceases. (BG 8.16)
But another unmanifest which is eternal, of a superior nature from the unmanifest of Brahma that is never destroyed when all living entities perish. That unmanifest is described as imperishable and proclaimed to be the supreme goal, having reached never returns to the material existence; that is My supreme abode. (BG 8.20-21)
I don’t know why your entire understanding is so abrahamic and material based, but we do read …
Fools deride I in My divine human form, unable to comprehend My supreme nature as the Ultimate Controller of all living entities. These bewildered fools of futile desires, futile endeavours, futile knowledge and futile understanding; certainly assume the nature of the athiestic and demoniac. (Bg 9.11-12)
Please read chapter 7 and 8 of Gita where Purusha, Brahman and prakriti are mentioned. The same purusha and prakriti are mentioned in the vedas and the Upanishads! In case of difficulty, please read the sanskrit where proper and original terms are given.
Anyways, I never knew people are impatient to discuss that they accuse other of “wanting to have the last word”. BTW, I’m still waiting for the verses
– from all the 4 upanishads about “sandhya vandanam” as you claim
– verses from Chandogya Upanishad and Manduka Upanishad which says “No living being can be above them or beyond them” i.e pUrva janma karma as you stated.
M Raghavan says
Mr. Girdhar,
you seem to find joy in people finding your wild-eyed beliefs ridiculed. Let me begin by saying that my “Vedic” guru will not teach me Bhavishya or Devi Puranam because they are considered rajOguna and tamOguna purAnas respectively. Acharyas, not Vedic gurus, can only teach Sattwika purAnams to Brahmins. This was first stated by Veda Vyasa Maharishi, not my guru.
What you said in your first paragraph about time and space coming to an end, blah, blah, could have easily been stated by Timothy Leary to justify his experiments with LSD. Because we fill our own people’s brains with this rubbish could be one clear reason why they are converting to Christianity and Islam. Not to say that Brahman is not like this; but I don’t think rishis were intending to make knowledge of it so surreal either. I have been taught that what made rishis what they are is that they were focused on one thing that Hindu pseudo-intellectuals, yourself included, are quick to dismiss – the good of the people at large.
Such a concern led Valmiki to ask Narada – whose name’s meaning is synonymous with Acharya – kOnvasmin sAmpratam lokE gunavAn kascha vIryavAn…” Valmiki’s concern was not nebulous concepts. It was whether a good human being existed in this world, possessing the qualities that sAstram says people should possess to be considered human beings. And Narada’s answer was that there is such a Man on this earth; it is because this Man lives proclaimed Himself to be just a human being that all human beings can aspire to these same virtues.
If we as Hindus had the good sense to proclaim this the hallmark of – to borrow your language – “Sanathan Dharm”, then perhaps the world – and myself – would listen with wonder.
Paraphrasing convoluted lines from self-proclaimed gurus who made their fortunes preying on a spiritually-starved world really does not sell to me. All it does is further convince me how such irrational thinking clouds minds, providing an apologetic excuse for Indians to look askance at how a once great culture has degenerated into the most morally decrepit society on the face of the earth.
Girdhar says
Dear Raghavan,
I guess you know everything since you studied in a “pathshala” and under an acharya. I guess all those poor souls who don’t have access to a pathshala or an acharya, certifications etc are really doomed. :'(
sayanthan says
@Raghavan I read the replies with keen interest and I fell from my chair laughing out loud while reading your replies. You make the Vedas sound so boring and monotonous and present it as if full of beliefs, strict dogmas and intolerance towards point of views of others be it people, puranas etc. I guess you are a fanatic Vaishnav or a muslim pretending to be a hindu, and it is because of people like you that youngsters want to dive away from the Indian knowledge. I would shoot myself if I were to sit in pattshaala and become like you, totally mechanical, materialistic, inflexible and fake. You may have studied for 30 years, yet your understanding is that of an arrogant teenager or an egotistical old man. PLease have mercy and stop giving remittances of your fake knowledge to distort the Indian knowledge further limited by your childish understanding of the Indians texts. I feel like vomiting after reading the poison you emit out of your schizophrenic and ignorant imaginations. You have totally distorted the karma based varna to cast system by birth and made a poisonous kichadi out of karma yoga by presenting it as some material prison from where nobody came out free and only those who study in a pattshala or with someone adored as an acharya can find the real knowledge. Mr. Wise Guy, you forgot that the ultimate knowledge is infinite and resides in the soul and no scripture can completely present it in anyway and thats why understanding of the self is very essential. Language also limits that knowledge and you are talking about acharyas and pattshala and sanskrit perhaps is the closest and most scientific knowledge that presents is almost completely. You seem to be taking pleasure in mocking our scriptures in the most saddistic mughal tone. What are you…. A third grade muslim?
Try to have respect for Gita, Upanishads, Puranas and great people of the Indian civilization. Your acharya must be banging his head in dismay….Period!
M Raghavan says
Mr. Sayanthan,
If you fell out of your chair laughing, it is because you, like most other Indians today, have been drinking too much.
There is nothing childish about seeing life for what it is. I hate to burst your bubble, young man, but life is a challenge. It is filled with hard times and tough decisions, and true self-awareness lies in knowing that. To succeed, even just to survive, requires discipline and a willingness to stand for your principles. This is called anushtAnam in Sanskrit. It also requires humility and commitment, vinayam and vidhEyatha in Sanskrit.
The rishis were human beings who were seeking a better life for the world. The tough environment in which they lived matured them quite quickly into accepting the need for the values that are required both to survive and to evolve. And some of them shared this experience with others. But, the self-styled neo-Vedantins have turned the ideas of discipline, maturity and integrity into this nebulous idea of “self”, which any outsider looking in can tell you is more “self-obsession” than “self-realization.” Because of this solipsism, Indian society has degenerated into one of apathy towards law, ethics, even basic human values, All you have to do is to look one direction at all the high-tech companies and the hedonism that comes with it, and then turn the other direction to see the teeming masses of people in India living in inhuman conditions of poverty and disease.
I quoted from a verse from Ramayana several times in my argument, but since none of you seem to know basic Sanskrit, no one has bothered to even look at what is said. I will defer to translate the verse or where it is found in the work, because I think it would good for you to learn and contemplate upon – that is, if you are not too busy brown-nosing your bosses so that you can move ahead in your software job, spending exorbitant amounts of money on food and liquor, all the while contemplating upon your navel to validate your amorality as being knowledge of the “self”.
sayanthan says
@Raghavan You can take your borrowed knowledge from some mental ward shove it up your sorry rear. Nobody is interested in your utterly laughable rigmaroles and lack of understanding of basic concepts of the Indian text. Assuming about others as if they are ignorant of sanskrit and judging their understanding from your lowly and hilarious sense of understanding is perhaps what constitutes as your only talents. It is self realization what makes one free from karmic cycles yet you bark like mad dog as if everyone is chained in some material prison waiting for pattshala and an acharya lol. You speak as if you are some rishi, with low and monotonous talks on Vedas making it look like strict dogmas, yet you do not know difference between karma based varna and cast system by births that self-certified preachers like you have distorted the whole sanatana dharma to.
Go and research further, your forefathers were all into the knowledge of self, creativity, who wrote puranas and constructed beautiful idols until a virus who sprang in their lineage blowing the golden trumpets of his 30 years of experience, patthshala and acharya and degrading the essence of puranas, gita and upanishads. They say wisdom dawns with age, and yet here we see a full fledged exception whose mentality is rotting as sun dawns everyday. Nobody asked you why you quoted Ramayan, yet you play an apologist as if someone inserted a cactus in your itchy and fantasy oriented huggies. Thats what happens when you take psychedelic drugs for 30 years, your brain cells start dying and you percieve world from that sorry state preaching dogmas to everyone around!
Prashant Parikh says
Guys, guys, guys… can we please all just cool off the purpose of this forum is to promote a better understanding of our dharmic roots and emerge as a people unified by common culture. All this fighting just betrays all of it.
Lets take a break. Just a suggestion
hariH Om
M Raghavan says
My earliest known forefather was Ranganatha Mahamuni, the person who compiled the nAlAyira divya prabhandam under the patronage of the Chola Kings. His grandson was Sri Alavandhar, aka, Srisaila Purna, who taught Ramayana to Bhagavad Sri Ramanuja. It is Bhagavad Sri Ramanuja’s unbroken chain of disciples to whom I show utmost loyalty. Sri Ramanuja and his sishyas upheld the Vedas to be the highest source of knowledge, wrote exemplary works about their meaning, that One True Supremely Compassionate Being holds sway over the whole universe. They also were the first to open the Vedas and the temples to people of all castes and communities. So, everything that you and the rest of the “self-realized” souls who have accused me of goes against the very grain of where I am coming from.
The verse from the Ramayana that I quoted from speaks of the qualities of a good human being: concerned for the welfare of others, he stands for what is right. He is loyal to dharma, attending to both worldly and spiritual duties, is gracious to all who befriend him, speaks the truth and lives up to his word. Valmiki wonders whether such a man exists.
In the rest of the paragraphs, Narada tells Valmiki about a Man – not some self-realized god-man, just a man – who possesses such qualities and then some. It is such a man, says Narada, who can and should be a model to how all human beings – even self-realized Hindus – should behave. It is thoughts about Him and the fact that He is the True Ruler of everything and everyone in sight that should give us peace and a moral compass for how to live our lives.
I have tried to live such a life ever since I was taught these values as a college student. If that makes me a virus in your eyes, then perhaps it is you who have been doing the drugs.
M Raghavan says
My mistake. Nathamunigal’s grandson was Thirumalai Nambi, aka Srisaila Purna. He taught Sri Ramayana vyAkhyanam to Sri Ramanuja.
sayanthan says
@Raghavan Do you have a gas problem? Basically you are blindly following your source history and secondary works which are prone to containing errors which were amplified from Ranganatha Mahamuni (whoever he was lol) to Alavandhar and got distorted from varna by karma to cast by birth through its ‘unbroken chain of disciples’ which became a joke book on you who distorted the whole understanding of karma yoga to a material prison with only those who study under an acharya and pathshala be able to find something unique out of this prison.
I can understand why @Girdhar opted out of the debate, perhaps you helped him develop a six pack abs by making laugh out loud too much. I don’t know why you are wasting your time here, but perhaps you could have done better in the Great Indian laughter challenge. I guess this is the first thing you write in your professional resume and cover letter i.e about 30 years of research, your chain of forefathers which committed suicide on you, your self-certified schizophrenic achievements and your aphasic understanding of Hinduism in your sorry state of keyboard Ghajini. I’m sure you must be having a copy of that para on Ramayana which you keep copy-pasting to increase the no. of suicides, perhaps the only thing that you learnt in your 30 yrs of research and teaching under an acharya. Grow up kid, stop taking tuitions and experience the whole Sanatana dharma from your own primary state of understanding instead of drooling over the works of your lineage!
The only thing your arguments do is increase the amount of tamas in the body. So, stop making Vedas and Puranas sound so boring, the magical and eternal works which look like ancient ruins through your monotonous and suicide-inspiring notes.
M Raghavan says
If you don’t know who Nathamuni is, and want to ridicule verses from Ramayana, then who is the “abrahamic” now? Stupid Jerk!!!! You can go ahead and play with your “self”. Once your H1B expires and you are safely back in your Indian slum, that’s all you’ll have.
sayanthan says
haha, when the whole universe is nameless and formless, then who cares who Nathamuni is. The knowledge of self is not dependent of any name you old fart. You are not even an atom in this entire cosmos and none of the forces of the nature or people of wisdom care who you or your lineage is or was. I’m ridiculing you and not Ramayana. If you cannot understand the simple difference and assume both to be the same, then take your head and stick it into the dung as it is a sin to keep the twins apart. I dunno about HiB, but you forgot your lineage starts from me and it is clear how lowly you think of the puranas, gita, upanishads and my India that you equate it with slums. Perhaps you have a lot of experience scaring people away with that grotesque and farty face of yours.
I’m sad that one of my DNA chains distorted down the ages in the form of you that it is started resembling that of pigs who can do nothing better but oink about names, lineage, certifications and pathshalas.
Prashant Parikh says
Friends, if there are some trolls in the house lets not feed them with our replies. This is a great article, let its dignity remain. Thanks.
M Raghavan says
@Prashant Parikh my apologies for emotional outburst; I was deeply pained by the use of noble Acharyas and key stotras from Sri Ramayana as a means to insult. It is further proof of the degenaration of our society from its once noble ideals. I will refrain from further posts regarding this topic, as it seems to be a magnet to trolls.
sayanthan says
Hehe, on one hand you are singing glories of your certifications and pathshala and on the other about your superficial and artificial “human values and humbleness” and yet when pinched a little you start abusing like a lunatic …. like….”Stupid Jerk!!!! You can go ahead and play with your “self”. Once your H1B expires and you are safely back in your Indian slum, that’s all you’ll have.”
A little cheeze and the mouse came out of his hiding! It seems for 30 years you have been only insulting your acharyas by culminating a fragile mind which preaches about humbleness and then abuses when pricked. Hypocrites like you shouldn’t be allowed to roam around under self-certified guise of “remittances, humanity and wisdom”, yet temper so loose that you generalise on youngsters that they drink, insulting puranas and upanishads and see nothing beyond slums in India. This control of mind which is a part of knowledge of self is something, it seems, which Nathamuni or whoever didn’t teach you.
So stop trolling around everywhere on this site copy-pasting the only file you have on Ramayana distorting varna by karma to cast by birth and presenting karma yoga as some material prison from whom only pathshala guys can come out. Do you even realize how many innocent children committed suicide reading yur long, boring, inflexible, dilapidated concepts and lectures making Vedas look like some dogmas and copyrights of acharyas and pathshalas?
Babde badai na karein bade na bole bol
rahiman hira kab kahe laak taka mera mol!!
hehe!
Arjun says
“Regarding my research, I have been studying “Hinduism” for 30 years, 20 of which has been under the tutelage of Acharyas. Prior to my studying under them, I spent hours rummaging through my father’s voluminous library of books – reading about the life and teachings of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. Ramana Maharishi, Swamy Sivananda, to name just a few. It is only after I began my learning under qualified Acharyas, who also teach to every community in every nook and cranny of the world, that I found answers, and now can engage in lucid discussion with ”
Westerners without having to put down their religions.”
Not being funny but you seemed to have wasted your 30 years or more as you dont even understand the essence of sanathan dharma let alone trying to be an expert on it.You would have made more sense eating a plate of stale pakoras and letting off gass than the type of nuclear mushroom cloud gass you are letting off here.