Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Basic questions about Hindu beliefs

  1. #11
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Basic questions about Hindu beliefs

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namasté

    I wrote.
    You mention many gods. This is almost a trade-mark of the ~ hindu~ view. Yet there is only one Reality. All the devatā are expressions of this one reality
    There may be those that think I come to these conclusions on my own. That it is some new age idea, some whim or invention, some innovation of liberty in words perhaps. Who am I to be this creative ? I am just one more wishing to unfold my self with my SELF, that is all.
    So, from where does this knowledge come from ? Where do I get my support to even state this quote offered above ?

    If the reader wishes to direct their attention to the aitareya¹ upaniṣad 3.1.3 , it is here that I took my support on this matter. (I am happy to offer the devanāgarī / saṃskṛtā version if there is interest). It says:
    That (or prajñāna) becomes brahmā, that becomes indra, that becomes prajāpati, that becomes all the devā-s or gods ( sarve devā as it is said in this śloka). That becomes the 5 great elements
    ( or pañca mahābhūtāni)… it continues to outline all living beings flying, walking, or stationary, are all well founded in prajñāna.

    So, one must ask who or what is prajñāna ? The same śloka ( 3.1.3) informs us in the last line, prajñāna (प्रज्ञानं) brahma || or prajñāna is brahman.

    iti śivaṁ

    words
    • the ṛṣi of the aitareya upaniṣad is aitareya mahīdāsa. Aitareya mahīdāsa is also called out in the chandogya upaniṣad saying he lived to 116 years of age. It is said he was the incarnation of viṣṇu.
      • He is known as aitareya mahīdāsa. Aitareya means the decendent of itarā his mother, and mahīdāsa is the servant (dāsa) of mahī or bhūmi devī. It is he aitareya mahīdāsa, that has brought the wisdom of the aitareya brāhmaṇa , aitareya āraṇyaka, and the aitareya upaniṣad to mankind.
    Last edited by yajvan; 16 November 2014 at 05:58 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #12
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    The Holy Land - Bharat
    Posts
    2,842
    Rep Power
    5499

    Re: Basic questions about Hindu beliefs

    Namaste Kalicharan,

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalicharan Tuvij View Post
    In Gita, Krishna- who is fulfilling His mission on earth - has a set agenda, and therefore talks accordingly. His teachings are, therefore, bound within time and scope (set by none other than Himself). Veda, on the other hand, is eternal. This is the only difference (minor, mind you) between Gita and Veda. In fact, therefore, all the "secondary" texts and traditions speak the same language as that of the Veda, but limited in scope - time and space.
    Somehow I get the impression that Bhagwad Gita is a secondary text and Shri Krishnaji's teachings from it were suited for a wartime scenario during the Mahabharta time frame and don't carry the eternal truths of life which are valid today. Please tell me that I am totally wrong in so interpreting your wording.

    Pranam.

  3. #13

    Re: Basic questions about Hindu beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namasté

    I wrote.


    There may be those that think I come to these conclusions on my own. That it is some new age idea, some whim or invention, some innovation of liberty in words perhaps. Who am I to be this creative ? I am just one more wishing to unfold my self with my SELF, that is all.
    So, from where does this knowledge come from ? Where do I get my support to even state this quote offered above ?

    If the reader wishes to direct their attention to the aitareya¹ upaniṣad 3.1.3 , it is here that I took my support on this matter. (I am happy to offer the devanāgarī / saṃskṛtā version if there is interest). It says:
    That (or prajñāna) becomes brahmā, that becomes indra, that becomes prajāpati, that becomes all the devā-s or gods ( sarve devā as it is said in this śloka). That becomes the 5 great elements
    ( or pañca mahābhūtāni)… it continues to outline all living beings flying, walking, or stationary, are all well founded in prajñāna.

    So, one must ask who or what is prajñāna ? The same śloka ( 3.1.3) informs us in the last line, prajñāna (प्रज्ञानं) brahma || or prajñāna is brahman.

    iti śivaṁ

    words
    • the ṛṣi of the aitareya upaniṣad is aitareya mahīdāsa. Aitareya mahīdāsa is also called out in the chandogya upaniṣad saying he lived to 116 years of age. It is said he was the incarnation of viṣṇu.
      • He is known as aitareya mahīdāsa. Aitareya means the decendent of itarā his mother, and mahīdāsa is the servant (dāsa) of mahī or bhūmi devī. It is he aitareya mahīdāsa, that has brought the wisdom of the aitareya brāhmaṇa , aitareya āraṇyaka, and the aitareya upaniṣad to mankind.
    Pranam,

    I understand your clarification. I respect that. But now you should also try to understand from where I am coming.

    For I can only humbly submit that I am not under any influence either; I am not here to propagate something that is mine, or created by me (as I am also not so talented ).

    When you say it is based on Upanishads, I agree, and find that to be valid. But not more than that. Why? Because I differ in the devil (detail ).

    For example, your translation says, "That becomes Brahmā, that becomes Indra,...", whereas, according to the original Sanskrit there is neither "that" nor "becomes" mentioned anywhere (some minor invention? ).

    A sincere translation would read, "He (or This: masc.; eṣa) is Brahmā, He is Indra, He is Prajāpati, He is all these devatā-s,..".

    Note that "He" is a masculine pronoun, not a neuter "it" normally used for Brah*** .

    So, who is He? Basically, Brahmā (though also called as purusha here).

    And Brah*** - the potentiality of Creation and the Universal Intelligence- is the core/ base of Brahmā (just as Umā - an other deity - is of Durgā, in another sect), and this is what is called out a few lines later.

    Upanishads are sectarian texts belonging to BrahmANism. So they stick to their own focus on one Vedic deity (as other sects do), and follow their own cosmology and the story of Creation (which is completely true, yet not the only valid one) wherein in the start there was Asat, and Brah*** was all Alone, and later had to struggle quite hard to connect to other realities (first on Hiranyagarbha/ holographic level, finally in real sense, as in Sat). This particular Upanishad, The Aitareya, is exemplary in explaining such truth; only, one should know how and at what pace to read the text.

    I sincerely hope you will try to understand my standpoint, too (which is not mine at all). Brahmā is a composite reality, composed of pure devā-s. This is what this text is plainly calling out, and which is consistent with the rest of Hindusim as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Believer View Post
    Namaste Kalicharan,
    Somehow I get the impression that Bhagwad Gita is a secondary text and Shri Krishnaji's teachings from it were suited for a wartime scenario during the Mahabharta time frame and don't carry the eternal truths of life which are valid today. Please tell me that I am totally wrong in so interpreting your wording.

    Pranam.
    Pranam,

    Say, you are totally right in so interpreting my wording.
    In Gita, Krishna- who is fulfilling His mission on earth - has a set agenda, and therefore talks accordingly. His teachings are, therefore, bound within time and scope (set by none other than Himself). Veda, on the other hand, is eternal. This is the only difference (minor, mind you) between Gita and Veda. In fact, therefore, all the "secondary" texts and traditions speak the same language as that of the Veda, but limited in scope - time and space.
    Therefore, let us re-write the above while reversing its import:
    In Gita, Krishna- who is present on earth just for enjoyment- has only Leela to do, therefore talks accordingly. His teachings are, therefore, not bound within time and scope (set free by none other than Himself). Veda, on the other hand, is boring. This is the only difference (major, mind you) between Gita and Veda. In fact, therefore, all the "primary" texts and traditions speak the same language as that of the karmakAnDi Veda, but liberated in scope - time and space.
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

  4. #14
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Basic questions about Hindu beliefs

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namast�

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalicharan Tuvij View Post
    Pranam,

    I understand your clarification. I respect that. But now you should also try to understand from where I am coming.

    For I can only humbly submit that I am not under any influence either; I am not here to propagate something that is mine, or created by me (as I am also not so talented ).

    When you say it is based on Upanishads, I agree, and find that to be valid. But not more than that. Why? Because I differ in the devil (detail ).

    For example, your translation says, "That becomes Brahmā, that becomes Indra,...", whereas, according to the original Sanskrit there is neither "that" nor "becomes" mentioned anywhere (some minor invention? ).

    A sincere translation would read, "He (or This: masc.; eṣa) is Brahmā, He is Indra, He is Prajāpati, He is all these devatā-s,..".
    Let me test my understanding. Your issue is on specificity yet not on the subject at hand , that HE is all the devā-s or gods ( sarve devā as it is said in this śloka). This is what you have brought forward in post #7.
    you also mention,
    But not more than that
    What then is the issue ? This is where there was difference. It is the spirit of the śloka that I was offering... but you find the blemish?
    Perhaps you are looking for more validation ? For that I will let you pursue as you see fit.


    I still stand by what I wrote and believe it uholds the accuracy of the śloka, as it is germane to the overall conversation, and the translation is valid. Again, as offered in my last post I am willing to supply devanāgarī / saṃskṛtā version if there is interest but think it is of little value at this juncture.
    iti śivaṁ
    Last edited by yajvan; 17 November 2014 at 05:54 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #15

    Re: Basic questions about Hindu beliefs

    Yajvan,

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    There may be those that think I come to these conclusions on my own. That it is some new age idea, some whim or invention, some innovation of liberty in words perhaps.
    It's a mixture of New Age with unlimited universalism, seeing that you have a tendency to not only not subscribe to the Hindu category in terms of identification but also provide irrationally idealistic backing to all and every paths known to mankind. Apart from that, your tendency to shastra-cite non-stop, a non-Dharmic epistemic and ontological facet which is presumably a carry-over from your socio-cultural non-Bharatiya origin, is another dead giveaway. Either way, the praise in my signature is just as valid as this "Self/Reality" you speak of, if not more. The point is to acknowledge the difference in perspective, not overshadow one with one's own presupposition regardless if it was derived from Itara's begotten.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Basic questions about Hindu beliefs

    namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    Yajvan

    It's a mixture of New Age with unlimited universalism, seeing that you have a tendency to not only not subscribe to the Hindu category in terms of identification but also provide irrationally idealistic backing to all and every paths known to mankind. Apart from that, your tendency to shastra-cite non-stop, a non-Dharmic epistemic and ontological facet which is presumably a carry-over from your socio-cultural non-Bharatiya origin, is another dead giveaway. Either way, the praise in my signature is just as valid as this "Self/Reality" you speak of, if not more. The point is to acknowledge the difference in perspective, not overshadow one with one's own presupposition regardless if it was derived from Itara's begotten.
    let me say this... HDF is filled with opinions. Everyone has one. My choice which I will continue to pursue will be based upon the knowledge that is supported by our scriptures. Other then that ( or without this support) it is just one more opinion based on conjecture or some idea or ' I heard this'.... for me this adds little value to HDF.
    While I hear your points above - they too are more opinion. I see no detail nor substantiation to what you offer and for me that limits the creditibility. I see it ( perhaps hear it is more accurate) as venting. Fine. Got your points and see your judgements, thank you for taking the time to offer your point of view.

    Let us both go our own ways. But let me offer this. If my offers/writings in some way cause you angst ( even to view one word) then feel free to eliminate my posts from your viewing. you can do this via HDF options and 'turn off' any and all posts that are authored by me. Its quite simple to do.

    iti sivam
    Last edited by yajvan; 17 November 2014 at 06:35 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 06 April 2014, 06:07 AM
  2. Julia Roberts: I'm A Hindu, I Don't Believe in Botox
    By BryonMorrigan in forum Canteen
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 22 September 2010, 09:27 AM
  3. I am Hindu!
    By satay in forum Canteen
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 07 September 2010, 12:30 AM
  4. Hindu Political Parties
    By PrimeDirectives in forum Politics - Current Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16 April 2009, 05:47 PM
  5. More questions on being Hindu
    By ThouArt in forum I am a Hindu
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02 August 2006, 11:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •