• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Brhamin converting to Christianity

Status
Not open for further replies.

silverfox

Active member
Someone has sent the following article by one Anand Mahadeven, who is the editor of OUTLOOK INDIA. No wonder, all the newspapers, news journals (including the HINDU) are in the hands of these evangelicals. I would love to write to this guy, Mahadeven, if I only knew his email id. BTW, I did not buy his story on why he didn't change his Hindu name!!
What do the members think? Is it worth our time to engage this guy, who seems to be the poster boy for the glory of Christianity? I have given only the first para; please go to this link to read the whole story. I don't know why; I am very irritated, agitated and angry at this guy telling me who or how a God should be. I used to get OUTLOOK whenever I was in India; now I will skip it since it has a slanted vision of Indian news anyway.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/arti...mercury&t=A+Christian+convert+addresses+India

-------------------------------------
A Christian convert addresses India

The editor of Outlook India, a business magazine, addresses his embrace of Christianity. Reflecting on his conversion, he says that he would never force his faith on anyone.

Monday, October 20, 2008
By Anand Mahadevan

I was born a Brahmin and am the grandson of a priest whom I dearly loved. I am educated and my current professional standing indicates that I am reasonably intelligent. I am also affluent and my income would put me distinctly in the upper middle class bracket. I guess that would make me high-caste, rich and smart. In other words, I am not a tribal, or poor or dim-witted. And yet, I chose to become a follower of Jesus Christ.

The world would call me a convert to Christianity. I have no problems with that, though I see my faith more as a relationship with God through Jesus Christ than as a religion. And for the record, I can truthfully claim that no one financially induced or threatened or deceived me into converting to Christianity. (for the entire article, go to the link above)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
H

hariharan1972

Guest
Someone has sent the following article by one Anand Mahadeven, who is the editor of OUTLOOK INDIA. No wonder, all the newspapers, news journals (including the HINDU) are in the hands of these evangelicals. I would love to write to this guy, Mahadeven, if I only knew his email id. BTW, I did not buy his story on why he didn't change his Hindu name!!

What do the members think? Is it worth our time to engage this guy, who seems to be the poster boy for the glory of Christianity? I have given only the first para; please go to this link to read the whole story. I don't know why; I am very irritated, agitated and angry at this guy telling me who or how a God should be. I used to get OUTLOOK whenever I was in India; now I will skip it since it has a slanted vision of Indian news anyway.

No ! This cant be true.

I mean Silverfox sir, how could you have the same train of thoughts as i have or rather had on reading AM. I also questioned and continue to question the obfuscation of name.

The favourite line of Lotus_Quartz (copyright: Ludlum) comes to my mind : "Obfuscation of the truth in the interest of deniability"

While i dont question the convictions of someone who wants to change his/her faith, the resistance to walk the last mile is not understandable.

If you had read AM's note fully, what actually got my goat was the fact that he gave his children "distinctly Hindu names" after he and his wife (another harvested soul) got married.

I just dont understand the intention to carry on with a Hindu identity without any intention to follow it's tenets.

I have had long drawn debates in Karuthu exactly about this with another member who chose to walk down the same path as Anand did. Same pedigree as well.

I think the idea is to smudge the identity of Hinduism almost to the point of Goundamani's missing banana

Hindu engada ? (Where is the Hindu ?)

Adhanne Christian ! (Christian is the Hindu)

Please read my response written in Karuthu which contains some of the reactions to AM's article published in the subsequent edition of Outlook

Quote :

The article by Anand Mahadevan has invited some interesting responses from a wide spectrum and i record a few of them.

Interestingly no Christian (few by name others by self-declaration - can you see the problem Arul and Tamizh ?) has spoken against conversion by force.

Hmmm....

Few comments

'Anand need not have mentioned his Brahmin background as though he were a sinner transformed into a saint'

'Unlike Anand I was born in a Christian family....I've read the Bible, the Gita, the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Quran.....I've realized that joy and hope are not Christianity's preserve alone, the mistaken assumption that drives Christian evangelists. Anand may not have experienced God in the way his grandfather did but others have......Hinduism is a religion that can satisfy the intellectual or spiritual needs of anyone...One has to make an attempt to explore it. However this realization did not make me convert to Hinduism, it just enhanced my experience manifold'

'The wealth of spiritual thought in Hinduism is beyond compare. It just has to be brought closer to the common man'

'After reading Anand's feelings on his change of heart, i have a suggestion. His journey is not over yet. He is only half way away from his final destination...Islam. If he reads the Quran with an open mind, he'll see real enlightenment' (What say Arul, Tamizh ?)

'A man who feels the religion he was born in wasnt good enough deserves no sympathy. .....It is foolish to compare religions...Hinduism is as simple or complex as Christianity or Islam'

'Is outlook turning evangelist now ? Anand's piece and the accompanying 'Soulspeak' seemed like a paid PR campain to promote Christianity and belittle other faiths. All those featured claim to have found enlightenment by embracing christianity' (This is not by the usual suspect, a Hindu brahmin but a follower of Islam)

'Anand claims Hinduism as his identity. There are millions like me who'd willingly accept Jesus as a son of God. But the problem arises when the proselytizers insist that Jesus is the only son of god and other gods are fake. To ardent Hindus that's an insult, to Muslims, blasphemy'

'Mahadevan's experience is unique to him. He should not think that it's the only true experience. He may have found his connect with Jesus, others find a similar connect with Rama, krishna or Allah and their experiences are as wondrous as Anand's'

'What's Anand trying to prove ?......Just because conversion can happen because of a genuine change of heart doesnt mean all conversions are benign. If you can make people embrace another religion by a simple prayer why sling mud on other religions as is done in the South and in Orissa ?'

'Anand's failed to make a convincing case for conversion'

'I'd have rather that Anand had converted to Atheism like me' (Oh, not one more self-proclaimed intellectual !)

'While everyone should have the right to follow a particular path of religious faith and salvation, no Mahadevan can make me accept that my religion is inferior in any respect'

The one reaction, I identify with is below :

'Let all religions put their wares on the table and let people decide. May the best one win ! No need to kill, burn down houses, make people eat cowdung and rape women because they find your product inferior and moved to another'

As I have been saying, I really support 'Transparent Non-Malicious Proselytization'

Also Ms Tamizh, i have a sneaky feeling that it may be inconvenient for your sources to fish out another article from Outlook, this time by Francois Gautier titled 'The Hindu Rate of Wrath'. I will try to post it for your 'reading comfort' (no pun intended)

Unquote
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
The articulation of perceptions about the Vedic rituals and shlokas so as to convey the impression that they are confusing and that they do not relate directly to the mind seems to be a glaring message of the convert’s proclamation…

What is the need of such ruckus?

That he is a Brahmin by birth and has converted of his own choice seems to put through certain subtle points; probably to underplay the subvert missionary actions (which the Hindu groups clamour) that target “soft” sections of our society.


=>Was it the purported open and free way of “talking with god” that changed his perception? To be more precise was it only the “talk” or was it the “god” that changed his perception?


=>Was it his inability (or lack of intent) to understand the shlokas and relate them to his inner mind that he lost his faith in his native identity?

The fact that he is a confused mind is obvious from his statement that he is "culturally a Hindu". What does he mean by that? Culture has no meaning without its underlying faith.

God is indeed a personal choice, but then why make one’s choice ostensible? unless, of course, there is an underlying message to be taken from the viewpoint. But what is the message?

That Jesus is the true god?

That conversions take place with true love and knowledge of Jesus?

That the existing culture can be continued even though one becomes a Christian?

That the existing ways (maybe shlokas) of communicating with God do not identify themselves with the intellect of the individual?

Maybe this is the strategy which the papal forces would employ in future…

Having said all the above, I feel that minds which stray often reach a fixation which always need not be bound by reason. So, while AM’s change of mind could have been due to circumstances and quite genuine, his tom-tom definitely is not…

[FONT=&quot]Let him be, and let the issue be; we will focus our energies in more constructive ways which would instill one’s faith in our culture.

Regards,
Seshadri
[/FONT]
 
OP
OP
silverfox

silverfox

Active member
Last night I wrote to the OUTLOOK general mailbox asking for the personal email id of Mr. Mahadevan. Surprise! He sent me back a reply:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
The Outlook team told me you were trying to reach me. This is my email-id. I'll be happy to hear from you. Anand Mahadevan [[email protected]]
Best
Anand
---------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go! If any of you feel like writing to him, please do so. But..please... be polite and civil.

Hari, great to hear from you. As they say, 'great minds think alike' !!
I have written to you separately.
 

anandr91

Member
Prize Jewel

Of course, he is the prized jewel for any christian who is intent on converting people. they can put him upfront and make a claim saying, see we didnt have to promise him anything and he is not from the downtrodden and neglect lot by the "Hindus".

I am not sure where he did his schooling. but i can make a calculated guess that it might have been a christian institution. a place where they feed the minds of the confused youths with "Secular views"(read as christian ideology). if he didnt, am not sure why he would feel this way.

I for one did go to one such place and have seen a few of my friends fall prey for it. they were the ones who didnt have any idea or knowledge about who they are and what their religion is about. they are the ones who wanted to associate themselves with someone who can speak english, listen to rock music and other such "western things". all of a sudden, in walks a guy and talks so flowingly and eloquently about their god and how he talks to u and listens to you and u can talk to him just like u would with ur friends. no crazy slokas in a language u have no grasp of and no cool songs to sings in the "temple". I have seen this thing played many a times in the place where I went for my college. scary. and for someone who is confused, it is easy to fall prey for this trick.

if he thinks he is better off, good for him. Dont gloat about it.
 
H

hariharan1972

Guest
what is this Karuthu you are referring to Mr.Hari?

A debating forum just as TB started by Kanimozhi and Karthik Chidambaram, ofcourse with very less civility and greater hostility compared to ours.

I should ofcourse be candid enough to admit that I have been a part of all the uncivility and hostility that has unfolded. I did what i did since i couldnt be playing in an "Akhada" (indigenous wrestling ground, for the uninitiated) without getting myself dirtied.

My stock of civility unfortunately runs very low there and whenever i feel the need to tank up i do come to TB.
 

Brahmanyan

Well-known member
Brahmin converting to Christianity

Dear "Silverfox",

I too do not understand why you should get "irritated, agitated and angry" when one Brahmin Mahadevan turns to Christianity to find his God. For a true seeker of Truth, religions do not matter. Religious identity is just outer shell of social grouping, nothing to do with realisation of ultimate truth. As JK declared "Truth is a pathless land...." or as Rig Veda puts it "Truth is one but the wise men speak in many ways" (RV:1:64:46).


Once an American approached Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamigal of Shringeri and said, "I want to change my religion by conversion to Hinduism. I am not happy with Christianity". The Shankaracharya replied, "I don't mind your converting to Hinduism. But tell me, why are you fed up with Christianity? Have you ever been an honest and sincere Christian? First, try to be one. Practice Christianity for some time without any reservation and if you still remain unhappy with it, I will make you a Hindu. We are not itching to drag non-Hindus to Hinduism. We do not believe in conversions. Conversions take place because of political and pecuniary benefits it brings. We abhor conversions. We say, this is our way of life. Accept it only if you are convinced of reaching the goal by going along with it." (Dialogues with the Guru - R.Krishnaswami Aiyar).


It seems this Mahadevan does not want to give up his Hindu identity for obvious reasons. To keep his respectability in the social strata of the converts. Otherwise there is no need to mention his Caste at all in the article. If he could see his faith more as a relationship with God through Jesus, that is wonderful, but he need not bother about what the outside world talk about a convert.


Conversions of Brahmins, both boys and girls, to other religions take place on regular basis due to specific reasons of job patronage, pecuniary gain, love marriage etc. but very few for spiritual gains.


By the way, Outlook group magazines is not in my list of Journals for reading.


Regards,
Brahmanyan.






Someone has sent the following article by one Anand Mahadeven, who is the editor of OUTLOOK INDIA. No wonder, all the newspapers, news journals (including the HINDU) are in the hands of these evangelicals. I would love to write to this guy, Mahadeven, if I only knew his email id. BTW, I did not buy his story on why he didn't change his Hindu name!!
What do the members think? Is it worth our time to engage this guy, who seems to be the poster boy for the glory of Christianity? I have given only the first para; please go to this link to read the whole story. I don't know why; I am very irritated, agitated and angry at this guy telling me who or how a God should be. I used to get OUTLOOK whenever I was in India; now I will skip it since it has a slanted vision of Indian news anyway.

-------------------------------------
A Christian convert addresses India

The editor of Outlook India, a business magazine, addresses his embrace of Christianity. Reflecting on his conversion, he says that he would never force his faith on anyone.

Monday, October 20, 2008
By Anand Mahadevan

I was born a Brahmin and am the grandson of a priest whom I dearly loved. I am educated and my current professional standing indicates that I am reasonably intelligent. I am also affluent and my income would put me distinctly in the upper middle class bracket. I guess that would make me high-caste, rich and smart. In other words, I am not a tribal, or poor or dim-witted. And yet, I chose to become a follower of Jesus Christ.

The world would call me a convert to Christianity. I have no problems with that, though I see my faith more as a relationship with God through Jesus Christ than as a religion. And for the record, I can truthfully claim that no one financially induced or threatened or deceived me into converting to Christianity. (for the entire article, go to the link above)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
OP
OP
silverfox

silverfox

Active member
Dear Brahmanyan:
I posted my observations in a hurry and, therefore, the misunderstanding. By any means, I did not feel irritated, agitated and angry about his conversion; it is his right and his personal belief. What I wanted to say was that he continued to keep his Hindu identity and especially his statement of being a "culturally a Hindu" (and bragging about him being a Brahmin, rich and smart); to me, it was hypocritical. In any case, thank you for correcting me.


[Dear "Silverfox",
I too do not understand why you should get "irritated, agitated and angry" when one Brahmin Mahadevan turns to Christianity to find his God. For a true seeker of Truth, religions do not matter. Religious identity is just outer shell of social grouping, nothing to do with realisation of ultimate truth. As JK declared "Truth is a pathless land...." or as Rig Veda puts it "Truth is one but the wise men speak in many ways" (RV:1:64:46).]
 

malgova.mango

Active member
Sri Brahmanyan Ji!

Namaskarams to you.

Your views on religion is very ambigous one...

quote from JK - "Truth is a pathless land .." is a questionable one.

The very meaning of religion is " a path" - Path to what? Path to know about one-self , god, world (Jeeva, Jagath and Ishvara vicharana - this is what shastra talks about) ad that becomes a path. The followers should have commitment to adhere to the path , then only there is a chance to know the truth.

From this it is clear JK doesn't know what is "truth" ... I see no substance in that quote.

Other religions don't talk about any knowledge - they talk only about beatitude - that is some place where you attain eternal happines forever, that's why they emphasis only karma. In other words there is no scope for "vimochana" for the followers of other religion.

As far your quote on Rig Veda - I see no conflict and it is same with Swamigal's word. Here he just emphasise - Sva dharma anushtana. He doesn't want to disturb the rythm , if you are a christian - so be a christian follow your dharma . No man is a island, he has his own social tie-ups any sensitive person won't disturb the harmony - so the advise.

Concuding - For a true seeker - religion is the only refuge to find "him". If not, our Bhagwan in the form of "Veda Vyasa" various "Rishis" and our fore-parents all strived for what?

They could have just left it just like that - ..... truth is a pathless land - so everybody live the way they like and finish with that - what ?

Thank God , they didn't , For if they thought like that , we wouldn't have our Puranans, Itihasas , Vedas and what not ( Just imagine the effort , commitment and tapas required to transmitt all literatures without even changing one word orally )

Just my preceptions... Forgive me for my impertinence.

Regards

Dear "Silverfox",

I too do not understand why you should get "irritated, agitated and angry" when one Brahmin Mahadevan turns to Christianity to find his God. For a true seeker of Truth, religions do not matter. Religious identity is just outer shell of social grouping, nothing to do with realisation of ultimate truth. As JK declared "Truth is a pathless land...." or as Rig Veda puts it "Truth is one but the wise men speak in many ways" (RV:1:64:46).


Once an American approached Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamigal of Shringeri and said, "I want to change my religion by conversion to Hinduism. I am not happy with Christianity". The Shankaracharya replied, "I don't mind your converting to Hinduism. But tell me, why are you fed up with Christianity? Have you ever been an honest and sincere Christian? First, try to be one. Practice Christianity for some time without any reservation and if you still remain unhappy with it, I will make you a Hindu. We are not itching to drag non-Hindus to Hinduism. We do not believe in conversions. Conversions take place because of political and pecuniary benefits it brings. We abhor conversions. We say, this is our way of life. Accept it only if you are convinced of reaching the goal by going along with it." (Dialogues with the Guru - R.Krishnaswami Aiyar).


It seems this Mahadevan does not want to give up his Hindu identity for obvious reasons. To keep his respectability in the social strata of the converts. Otherwise there is no need to mention his Caste at all in the article. If he could see his faith more as a relationship with God through Jesus, that is wonderful, but he need not bother about what the outside world talk about a convert.


Conversions of Brahmins, both boys and girls, to other religions take place on regular basis due to specific reasons of job patronage, pecuniary gain, love marriage etc. but very few for spiritual gains.


By the way, Outlook group magazines is not in my list of Journals for reading.


Regards,
Brahmanyan.
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Hi malgova.mango,

Just to highlight my viewpoint on the same:

"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally.

Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others."

- J Krishnamurti



His definition seems to convey the opinion that realization has to be by one’s own individual effort; whatever it takes.



The idea conveyed here is that there is a “Truth” and there are various beliefs that claim to be the path to “Truth”, but the original Truth may be entirely different of the derived Truth (derived from a belief). If one does not believe in a particular system, then the ideal of that system is not Truth according to him. And hence he denounces the logic of any belief that may lead to a derived Truth.

One cannot disagree with what he says.

Perceptions of individuals differ and hence to colour them with one version of the path may alter his/her original thinking. But everything an individual perceives through the senses is derived – we are learnt to talk in a particular tongue, to see and identify things through a particular way and so on. So one cannot have an absolute view of things with the senses, which are trained to perceive in a particular way.

So what is the solution?

One option is that no one should see through the “eyes” of the other – meaning that every individual has to learn for him/her self (no language, no sound, nothing). This would mean absolute silence (equal to samadhi state). But again, the world is not perfect and that kind of state is impractical now.

So the other option is to elevate the mind to detach itself from all the senses, which may cloud or colour the perception. What we perceive then, without the senses is the Absolute Truth.


In one of the discourses (on tape) of Osho, he had said that the human mind is like an onion – covered with layers of perception (not the exact wording). When one peels of all the layers, there is nothing… that is the Truth. There is a story in the Upanishads too (I do not remember which one), which illustrates this by the story of a banyan seed.

Every Religion provides a logic to elevate the mind through its own concept of defining what the ideal should be. The “logic” is nothing but different methods to elevate the mind. For one it may be a strict adherence to a code of conduct, praying “n” times and developing a kind of selflessness. Another may advocate love, kindness and selfless service as the goal. I feel that these are indirect means – by sticking to one particular line of thinking, slowly the mind gets detached (of course there are plenty of ways in which this ideal may get distracted) and gets an inner peace. The individual then becomes totally selfless and his pursuit of God may lead to realization.

[FONT=&quot]Our Religion is unique in the way that it explains what the Ideal is, the various logics involved and provides rules/policies/guidelines for the same. The Self is perceived in different forms depending on one’s intellect - starting from Idols to Nirguna Brahman.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

malgova.mango

Active member
Dear Sesh!

The subject you are talking or trying to understand is very subtle... But there is a definite methodology - a parampara - a tradition - to understand the "Truth" .A scientific and systamatic approach. But for that we need a steady mind , and the proper effort. In another word we need a proper guide or "Guru" to ably guide us in the path to show us the "Truth".

At first we believe him and do whatever he asks us to do, slowly he removes our obstacles , he introduce various disciplines to steady the mind and when the mind is firm to analyse the subject he carefully ask us to investigate upon any mis-judgment he ask us to review it he chips away our ignorance slowly and he opens our eyes to see the "Truth" . An ultimate answer to all our puzzles and riddles.

the process itself is a path. It is not only in spiritual field , anything , anyfield if you want to learn or to know you need a path - for example if you want to be an artist - you approach whom? an art teacher , then you follow the instruction and apply yourself in time you will be an artist. - All this means that you follow a process - a path.

Your assumption that to detach mind is what is taught is erronous - no body needs to teach that - you just have to go to your bed and say good night.

It is living , awakening - clearing the notion about who you are - that's all simple.

Don't read too much - if you do that you will end up as "Shunyavada" of Buddhist /Jainist view. I mean you still have to move one more step to solve the riddle.

The "SELF is preceived in different forms depending on one' intellect ...." is all obvious, that's pricesly the ignorance we want to get rid of.

It is not about preception , it is about "KNOWING" . It is something like a lemon in your palm. if somebody say i think you have an apple - what you would say - "No I've lemon" . Here it is no more belief it is knowledge that give you the conviction.

Do you see the difference between belief/ preception vs Knowledge. It is totally in a different class.

In other neo- religious theology there is no scope for logic , there the idea is to place you in heaven that's all.

In the buddhist, jains etc..... it stops at emptiness, atleast there is a scope here for logical thinking to an extent. So your onion theology has limitatons, it doesn't release you from anything. There is a danger also since everything is empty - why bother for good and evil? or people gets lazy. You can see the effect of this in many buddhist country.

Truth is one and the path is also one - but there may be many stages to arrive to it not many paths or pathless. In other words for the question "Who are You? " The answer is one not many. It is like what is in your hand ? the answer is one only - you understand.

So many stages are there ok - let it be. But don't say there is no path. If you say that , it shows you are as confused as any other. Just choose your teacher wisely. The stake is more than life and death - For we have had too many jenmas.

Regards
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Hi malgova.mango,

The process of learning comes when there is availability of the subject definition; art, science etc fall under this category, as WE have defined them. But not Truth – to confine truth based on one’s belief may be biased.

Perception and belief influence one another through knowledge, actions and reactions; but it is through realization (not knowledge) that one experiences the subtle.

If what you have in your hand is a lemon, then why should the other say apple? This example is applicable for delusions of sight and not for perception… Perception is based on values (belief system).

Even assuming your lemon/apple example as a metaphor, if both can prove logically, their claim, according to their nomenclature and belief system, it still does not prove anything. This Truth that we are discussing about is of the same nature.

This realization need not necessarily be attained by only following a particular path; of course, that there are paths available does not infer that it can be experienced only through certain definite methods.

My friend, it is not that easy to say good night and awaken with the realization of the Ultimate Truth. What do you think is the samadhi state? Detachment and sleeping are not one and the same!!! My statement on detachment meant that what the mind sees without any distortion of the senses is the absolute truth.

“Don't read too much” – this statement is a classic example of indoctrination. There may be no one “way” to anything.

Shunyavada is different – it assumes that everything is void and hence, there it becomes a belief system.

What you have written above is based on your belief system.

If what our scriptures speak is the irrefutable truth, then why do others not see it? To blame them ignorant would seem quite a convenient way to opt out.

A parampara comes into existence when an acharya (teacher) gets his realization and establishes a pattern for his disciples (followers/students) to end up in the same state as his.

It does not establish the fact that it is “THE” path.

Pathless may also mean untracked. For each, his way.
 
Last edited:

malgova.mango

Active member
Hi!

Lets not argue , but discuss ok..

Hi malgova.mango,

The process of learning comes when there is availability of the subject definition; art, science etc fall under this category, as WE have defined them. But not Truth – to confine truth based on one’s belief may be biased.

TRUTH HERE MEANS - Self- Knowledge in other words " Knowing who you are really" - Is it the preceived YOU or did you preceive your self wrongly.
as like a snake for a rope. If so you need to correct your knowledge simple nothing else is required.



Perception and belief influence one another through knowledge, actions and reactions; .

Belief here is like you believe a person is good before habituating with him , but slowly you find otherwise in time - In that sense I meant.

but it is through realization (not knowledge) that one experiences the subtle.

Many people make this mistake - they think they have to do something to realize and do this and that. whatever you do to realize something then you are in the worlds of cause and effect - as long the supporting cause is there the result is there - this is exactly "Samsara" whereas for Moksha it is purely knowledge and no karma is needed. That's the reason there is no karma prescribed for "adviata sanyasins" they are free of karmas nothing bind them, because they know what to be known - simple. "Shivo ham"



If what you have in your hand is a lemon, then why should the other say apple? This example is applicable for delusions of sight and not for perception… Perception is based on values (belief system).

Read in this context - suppose they want to fool you... so they say . The point I was trying to communicate is the difference between belief and knowledge and the superiority of Knowledge over preception and belief.

Let me try this...
Once a lion cub was raised by a goat family. Lion cub doesn't see his real mother. it believe the goat is the mother and lived it behaved like goat. One day another lion saw and understood the psychology of the Lion cub - It talked to the Lion cub and said you are a lion. But the Lion cub was frightened by the sight of lion and ran way. On the way it chance to reflect a well of water - it saw the mirror image of it. Slowly it understood , its real identity and started to live a life of lion.

Now you get what I'm trying to communicate.?



Even assuming your lemon/apple example as a metaphor, if both can prove logically, their claim, according to their nomenclature and belief system, it still does not prove anything. This Truth that we are discussing about is of the same nature.

This is what I said reading too much , of course relative truth is it is a lemon as understood and agreed by all. If you talk absolute truth it is a reading a bit too much - Nothing offensive said.


This realization need not necessarily be attained by only following a particular path; of course, that there are paths available does not infer that it can be experienced only through certain definite methods.


I answered - Self-knowledge has nothing to do with any experience - it is simply knowing oneself - nothing more , nothing less. Mahavakyas reveals the answer - but for assimilation you need a guru and a method. Since the answer is there only missing link is connection - you need the path.

I repeat with full conviction - Self-knowledge or the "Truth" has nothing to do with experience.

My friend, it is not that easy to say good night and awaken with the realization of the Ultimate Truth. What do you think is the samadhi state? My statement on detachment meant that what the mind sees without any distortion of the senses is the absolute truth.

Again my friend, mind see only thru senses - the thing you called mind is from where it comes, it is the product of senses - what you are talking about. detaching mind from senses - it naturally occurs in deep sleep - why should one put effort for that's happening in an effortless way?

mind see without distorion of senses? you mean when you do japa meditation or some analytical thinking without distraction or at the time senses function but didn't distort or what?

As for samadhi state is a deep sleep state - Bhagavat padal in one of his work called "Atma Pooja" confirms it.


“Don't read too much” – this statement is a classic example of indoctrination.

My apologies if that souds that hard, but believe me my intentions noble.

There may be no one “way” to anything.

if the answer is one then you say can approach in many ways - is valid that's why we have many upanishads. But if you say it is found outside our schol of thought then no you are wrong my dear.

But still one can't use the word "Pathless" agreed?


Shunyavada is different – it assumes that everything is void and hence, there it becomes a belief system.

No it is not a belief system - there is enough ground work and is very logical. it doesn;t assume - it logically deducts that everything is empty.


What you have written above is based on your belief system.

No I didn;t write my belief system - It is the fact.


If what our scriptures speak is the irrefutable truth, then why do others not see it? To blame them ignorant would seem quite a convenient way to opt out.

How would I know, maybe they didn't study our scripture, may be some papa obstructing their way, some other reasons - why shoud i be bothered?


A parampara comes into existence when an acharya (teacher) gets his realization and establishes a pattern for his disciples (followers/students) to end up in the same state as his.

No, This is our guru shloka

"SADASHIVA ARAMBHAAM,
SHANKARACHARAYA MADHYAMAM,
ASMATAHCHARAY PARYANATHAM
VANDE GURU PARAMPARAM?

Meaning that it was initiated by Lord, in the middle Bhagavat padal expounded it , and it came to me through my beloved guru.


It does not establish the fact that it is “THE” path.

Pathless may also mean untracked. For each, his way.

If each has his own way, then why bhagwan , in the form of various rishis and scriptures guide us and show the correct path? Why should our fore-parents put effort to transmitt entire corpus of literature orally without even missing one word (aksharam paishagama?) . Why we have "Brahma Sutra" for what?

I'm in no mood for arguments, I sensed some spirit of enquiry in your previous posts so I replied .. If it sounds offensive to you my apologies...
Regards
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Hi,

To clarify - an argument is also a discussion... I cannot help it if I offer differing views. Please be rest assured that nothing is offensive in a healthy debate.

My point is simple... I put this across through your own example:

Once a lion cub was raised by a goat family. Lion cub doesn't see his real mother. it believe the goat is the mother and lived it behaved like goat. One day another lion saw and understood the psychology of the Lion cub - It talked to the Lion cub and said you are a lion. But the Lion cub was frightened by the sight of lion and ran way. On the way it chance to reflect a well of water - it saw the mirror image of it. Slowly it understood , its real identity and started to live a life of lion.

Let the lion cub know the Truth, whether about the self or about the other, by itself... that is the crux of the issue here... everyone has a mirror in which the reflections are different... now what?

Truth is that which has no counter logic... it simply cannot be derived at using any references...

Regards,
Seshadri
 

malgova.mango

Active member
Dear Sesh!

It is impossible to get knowledge automatically or by chance. We need the mirror of Shastra (btw another name of shastra is called mirror - do you know?) and Guru is the Light ( guru - literally means remover of darkness - which means he is light).

But if you still want to believe it happens and no need for any path or guru or anything. You are free to believe anything. But pray answer me my last set questions in my previous post.

Regards
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Hello malgova.mango,

I did not mean that it should happen by chance… only the seeker needs a guru not everyone. Let them be, for that is nature. We all have a Svabhava (character) and can only go by that.

Now to answer your query on Brahma Sutras:


According to Sankaracharya:

ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]There is one absolute Brahman who is of a homogenous nature
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The appearance of this world is due to Maya – which is the illusory power of Brahman and is neither Sat or Asat
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]This world is unreal. It is an apparent modification through Maya
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Brahman appears as this universe only through this Maya. Brahman is the only reality
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The individual soul cannot identify with the brahman because of Avidhya or ignorance
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]He is both the actor and the enjoyer
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Removal of Avidhya leads to identification of Saguna Brahman
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]These devotees attain Brahma loka and attain Nirguna Brahman at the end of the cycle. They do not return to this world

According to Ramanujacharya:

ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Brahman is with attributes (Savishesha)
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Matter (Achit) and Soul (Chit) form the body of the Lord, who is Narayana (the inner Ruler or Antaryamin)
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Matter and souls are modes of Him
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The individual souls would never be entirely resolved in Brahmin
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Brahman is not absolutely one and homogenous. The individual souls undergo a state of contraction during Pralaya and expansion during Creation.
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Bhakti is the chief means to liberation
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The soul remains in Vaikuntam for ever and enjoys eternal bliss and divine Aishvarya of Lord Narayana


There are some fundamental premises to the above ideologies:

ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]That there is a supreme actor above us - Brahman
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]That the goal of human life is to attain Brahman or Moksha i.e., liberation from this life-death cycle
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]That Maya is the reason for this Universe (though it does not tell us why!!!)
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]That one has to move over from the unreal to the real
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]That this life we experience is ultimately not meant to be so

Please don’t get me wrong; but if one were to question these very basics, then the concept of Brahman and Moksha does not satisfactorily explain things…

ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Who created the creator? If the creator created himself (Svayambhu), why can’t every entity create themselves?
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Why should the universe be created?
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]What is the purpose? Is Brahman playing a PC game of sorts that he relishes in creating dissimilar entities and pitting them against a goal?
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Why should the goal of life be Moksha? Desire is the building brick of this universe; should it cease, then all life would cease.
ð[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]So why all this? What is the point?

The Charvakas maintained that there was no God and the soul comes into existence as a combination of the elements.

Consider an empty plot of land – somebody buys it and builds four walls and a rooftop over it… The entire structure together with the space trapped inside it comprise the new structure – It may be a storehouse, a simple house etc… the previously empty air has acquired a new name by virtue of the construction!!! When we demolish the construction, it simply ceases to be. The identification of the space is with reference to the particular construction. Over a period of time, the same space may be used for several different buildings (rebirth in a sense!!), but deriving a meaning out of all these is only our convenience.

Similarly when the elements combine together the soul is created whose identification (awareness) remains so long as the physical body exists and disappear as the physical body disintegrates. There is no concept of re-birth.

The Charvakas maintained that there is no author of this universe and all things combined together by virtue of properties inherent in them.

So it is apparent that the Brahma Sutras are for one who believes in the Vedas and Upanishads and the concept of a God or Brahman and believes that Moksha is the ultimate goal of life.


So, again I maintain that it is according to one’s beliefs that one sees the “Truth”.



Regards,
Seshadri
 

malgova.mango

Active member
Sesh!

We are talking about seeker only - not who live as a slave to his likes and dislikes.

For only a seeker he needs a guide, a path - this is clearly not for everyone.

Brahma sutra Bhashya of Bhagavatpadal illumines all the misconspetion - He victoriously debated over Charavakas, Madhayamikas and established advaitic views in his "DHIK VIJAYAMS" .

In the Bhasya - All the other views are examined , point by point and its short-comings are logically explained and superiority and the invincibility of the "Advaitic" views are made known.

As for Charavakas views , it short comings are expounded in Jaina and Buddhist teaching much much earlier to Bhagavat Padal's coming.

If you are geniunely interested - do a thorough research before you maintain any thing - My humble request.

It is not a blind belief in Vedas and Upanishads , ofcourse it starts with that type of belief - but an entire corpus of teaching is available to ascertain and verify the "Truth" as said in the Upanishad's with the support of irrefutable logic.



Regards
 

malgova.mango

Active member
Cont...

You may ask why there are other 2 types of interpretation, namely Dvaita and Vishistadvaita .

I see the possibility of more than 2 - see in india you need to have some siddhi , if you are able to please one devata , the devata will grant you many boons then you can start your own cult and can say anything you like - you will have followers - see it is like that. People also is not bothered - afterall these are not bread and butter issues.

You can see all these thing now also , we have vallalar,st thomas,some mulla,even some mouni babas, one baba doing magic is god now, another is bala baba and some or drunken babas, some fathers they all have a group a cult - this is india

Regards
 
Last edited:

malgova.mango

Active member
There is nothing wrong in questioning , infact you should question the basics thoroughly , but intention should be to burn one's ignorance.

If you have genunine quest , then ask at the correct people - that way you will get to know what you want to know. If you go and pick up a confused one , the danger is he'll make you more confused.

I can suggest many advaita swamijis - but you should have a genuine longing first.
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Hi malgova,

No!!! By qualifying the seeker, you are qualifying the other… that is not correct. Every human has a right to be, for that is nature. Commenting that he is a slave does not prove your point. The philosopher (or the seeker) identifies himself separately from the others by virtue of his belief and nothing else; let it be so, but that does not prove that the other is lowly.

Please do not assume that I have not read the Brahma Sutras… The point am trying to make here is the validity of the fundamental premises. Human mind always sees logic in everything… and that is why we assume a logical source to creation (even after attributing it to be beyond logic!!!).

One cannot doubt the logic of the Brahma Sutras if one agrees with the Vedas and Upanishads; but then, speaking as a detached individual (from any of the beliefs), one has to question the validity of the premise itself.

I am not saying that Charvakas’ view is the ultimate; the absence of a solution does not ratify the genuineness of the one offered.

You have not answered my doubts on the validity of the fundamental premises as pointed out in my earlier post. You are only repeating what I know – I have read about the life of Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya and their philosophies.

I have also gone through the “answers” that supposedly refute the other theories… and I have to say that some of the answers are not satisfactory; they presuppose logic, for e.g.:


The doubt - There is no creator and all things have evolved by view of their inherent properties.


The counter - If everything is capable of creating itself, then why do we not see creation now…? Why is there only one sun and not two or more?

My view - This is an absurd way to counter the question; it is causality that matters which is not bound by logic or consistency or pattern. We are talking as if the universe is a 80 GB hard disk and nothing can exist outside. The universe is infinite – there may be millions of solar systems that could house two or three suns!!! Again, the atom is unstable as long as its positive and negative charges are not balanced. Similarly the spontaneity of creation does not stop until there is some sort of balance.

If there are any more answers, I would genuinely like to know.

Janmadhyasya yathaha

Brahman is that from which the likes of origin etc (i.e., all activities) emanate

My view - This is a presupposed logic, which assumes cause and effect, though Brahman is defined as beyond cause and effect!!! Why should there be a reason? Why should there be a source? Why not causality?

It is human nature that we interlink things and come out with the best possible logic that could explain the way things are (for we believe that there is a cause and effect). We always try to define something using human logic - how we perceive things is as far as how our logic can go. So we are obsessed with the fact that there must be “something” beyond the horizon. What if there is indeed nothing?

I am not trying to disprove the infallibility of the Vedas/Upanishads, but they too are subject to the confinements of logic.

So, all your posts hold good if and only if we accept that there is a logic which drives all entities. Again this does not explain the Why of things…

Regards,
Seshadri
 
Last edited:

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
More about the "why"..

Why did Brahman create the universe?

Why must we seek liberation from life-death cycle after knowing that it is Brahman who had put us here in the first place?

Why do we praise Brahman? What is the necessity? Is he going to grant special favours for sycophants?

If we say that this is all a game... then surely Brahman must be having a good laugh seeing our actions here...

Regards,
Seshadri
 

KRS

Well-known member
Dear SS Ji,

I find your above postings to be quite corresponding to my own thinking.

Anyone who thinks that the 'solution' to our 'salvation' rests in the outward logic of any religion, in my opinion is wrong. Why? The Lord Himself in Gita has said so.

It is funny that some folks still think that Advaitha is THE ULTIMATE! They forget that there are numerous other 'Hindus' who subscribe to 'other' philosophies!

Religion is based on faith and faith is largely based on culture and birth.

What is viewed as the most logical religious path, may not be the true path at all.

This same mistake of thinking that one's religion is the most logical is the root of all problems in this world.

Every major religion is equally valid for it's adherents. Why? Because the number of adherents believe so. There is nothing to be gained by putting down any largely followed religion - because it disrespects the very humanity that got infused with that religion since the childhood of its adherent. This is why the active conversion is wrong.

I love my religion. I think i will find my salvation in it. But who am I to think that others brought up in different cultures would not have a religion given by Him to them that would not serve them?

It is a matter of arrogance to think that we Hindus are the chosen people.

Regards,
KRS
 

malgova.mango

Active member
Sesh!


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now like noodles, our discussion sticks from one to another ....[/FONT]

I said ,
It is impossible to get knowledge automatically or by chance. We need the mirror of Shastra (btw another name of shastra is called mirror - do you know?) and Guru is the Light ( guru - literally means remover of darkness - which means he is light).
You said,
I did not mean that it should happen by chance… only the seeker needs a guru not everyone. Let them be, for that is nature. We all have a Svabhava (character) and can only go by that.
I replied
We are talking about seeker only - not who live as a slave to his likes and dislikes.

Note - I should not have posted the last half. Ignore it , then we are communicating up to this point.

My point is a seeker of truth , should seek the "Truth" where it could be found - No other religious literature, Buddhist / Jains or any outside literature answer the quest of the seeker so pithily and directly as our Upanishads. The problem is only connecting to that. Yes many of us know "Mahavakyas" are conveying the "Truth" - But what's missing is the connection. So there is a methodology , a tradition, a path is available to make the connection .

So a true or genuine seeker should try to connect himself in a proper way. That's all.

Now , Vedas are divided into 2 PARTS - The part that deals with the 1st part namely Karma Gandam - is only for believers - It prescribes many rituals for many longings, thus if you want progeney - there is a ritual , if you want wealth - then another likewise there are many many rituals - to observe these all you need is belief and obedient following in what's said. Here you should not question anything, the vadyar tells you just obey it.

Then there is a latter part - called Veda anta - here comes Upanishads - the role is completely reversed , you are not only supposed to simply believe in the MahaVakyas , you need to understand and get connected., here the aspirant endaveour to understand.

So it is not based on belief we accept the Vedas to get to know the "Truth". No , In fact Mahavakyas - challenges us to solve the equation, we are drawn to that not because we believe but because of the puzzle the Mahavakyas throws.

It is like a young scientist trying to understand the equation E=mc2 , He is not merely believing it , he seek understanding . You got it?

Will continue.....
 
Last edited:

malgova.mango

Active member
Sesh!

Let me try to understand the seeker issue first...

See my reply is how I saw, correct me If I'm wrong.

Hi malgova,

No!!! By qualifying the seeker, you are qualifying the other… that is not correct. Every human has a right to be, for that is nature. Commenting that he is a slave does not prove your point. The philosopher (or the seeker) identifies himself separately from the others by virtue of his belief and nothing else; let it be so, but that does not prove that the other is lowly.
Is it like Einsten , finding relativity theory and manage to communicate his discovery to his compatriots , then after a long period another person set out to discover the same in his own way without any help or guide from what Einsten discovered. Because he wants to do it independently – By all means he can choose that. Is that how you mean?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]He is also a seeker – albeit with a difference that he choose not to follow a well set out path but to search alone or independently– If you mean this , then definetly he is also a seeker. But people would criticize him as a proverbial “having butter in hand and wandering for ghee type” never mind that's a small issue.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]So an individual seeker or the one who follow his desire , can he find the answer – like many scientist he can chance upon and say “Eureka” , this is possible with regards to external world and some isolated phenomenas as happened to sientists , just some flash , some intution revealing a beautiful set of laws , an order – a sudden flash , revelation is very much possible. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Here our subject is not only isolated phenomena or an external order like a relativity theory. Here the quest is both the internal and external and also the Law which governs the internal and external order. Lets call this “Truth”. So can he find out? – So far nobody finds out on his own, even Sages Like Vamadeva – who came to know and become gnani in the womb is said to have received some instructions prior to that. Moreover the tapas of previous jenmas help them to attain the knowledge . That's why I've quoted the Guru Shloka to emphasis the parampara has its origing from the Lord Himself.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Anyway even if we assume , he could find – that doesn't dis-credit the established path right? What I'm saying is there is a path – to choose to follow that or to set out his own is a person's choice right.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I repeat , what I said in my earlier post – The quest is the equation of who is that internal “you”, what is the external “world” (here in general sense – you can extend the whole universe) and what is the order in which these two are there. This is the quest – so the answer is given in many “Mahavakyas” - Now what's missing ? Only the connection.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hey look at this way – Question is there , answer is also there – But I couldn't connect , I know I hear the sound of Mahavakya – I was told that this is the answer but I could connect it is like any other sound like “kala kalakala” just a sound , I'm unable to connect to it. Isn't this our problem ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]To connect , what one can do – one can follow the transmission process or the path as set out by the “Rishi” and this is the path.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]So there is no pathless truth . If someone say this , then he is as confused as anybody - What you say?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Lets assume for argument sake : -

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If some person – say a Rishi, happened to stumble upon “Truth” - by some flash or some divine blessing , and he set to record it and find a way to transmit this “truth” - Does we need to go thorough what the “Rishi” went through to stumble upon the Logic – No need - you just follow the process , the path that he taught – you will get the same answer as the “Rishi” found. Simple as that. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

Will continue....
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks