Hinduism's Conquest of the West

[pannvalan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I am very sorry to note the disenchantment of some members here. In most of the threads I have observed people going in tangents quite often. But, there is no point in knocking at the wrong doors for remedy. Responsibility to put the sail on the right course lies elsewhere.

I do notice that who until yesterday were participating in the thread, knowing full well that there is digression - serious digression - preferred not only to keep quiet but instead actively contributed for the thread to drift further and further, by enjoying it and expressing their approval and appreciation for the contents have now come forward to criticise all. This is quite unfair.

When there is full freedom for every member - on a par with all others - to decide what to write and how take the discussion further, nobody prevented anyone to step in to express their feelings and expectations from the thread contributors. Keeping
silent for long and then, all of a sudden waking up and blaming others also is equally wrong.

Let us all play our role responsibly without passing judgements on others as this was the reason for someone like Nacchinarkiniyan (in the past) to quit voluntarily or Rama to get expelled. Certainly, this forum is not an election fray and no one wins or loses. We are all responsible citizens aware of our rights and limitations too.

I appeal to every member to kindly understand and appreciate what I say and continue their postings. Similarly, I appeal to the moderators and the administrators to kindly step in wherever necessary and take firm steps to bring a thread to an end, if it fails to achieve its desired objective or if it has served its purpose and it is no longer needed to be kept active, as nothing fruitful will be added by the members.

Regards,
pannvalan

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Dear Pannvalan,

Great use of strong words. With all due respect let me say this. People here are not paid full time bloggers, so they tend to be silent when they choose. People here do not need to raise the siren always because everyone deserves to be given a chance even a lot of chances. People here do not need to run away from saying, hey let's get back to the point, when they realize it. People here do not need to hear such strong words, just because they chose to agree, the thread was going off key.

And yes, there will be many more threads in future as well where people will go off key, all that we need to do is "gently" ask them to use private messages when it goes over board.

There is no need to get angry over people going off key and no need to get angry over people saying it is going off key way too much.

 

[pannvalan]

Truly sorry, Sridhar. I wasn't angry at all. I had to intervene thus, because you had
roped in me also in the discussion. Morever, I personally feel there is no 'junior' or
'senior' here, as everybody enjoys the same privileges and rights.

I just wanted to tell, having chosen to remain silent for long, there is no reason or justification to complain later. This is all I wanted to convey.

Love,
pannvalan

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Dear Pannvalan & KRS,

Did you know I registered into this forum last month, only because of the attitude shown by some of you senior members in past and the rich content being shared here. By saying what you have in your last message both of you have gained more respect, even from potential visitors in future.

It would greatly benefit all members if any personal ideology conflicts with other members can be done through private messages, if the discussion does not fit into the topic. If not, any type of member or administrator can step in even after a long break to say things may be going out of the topic - simply because we are not full time bloggers.

Please let us continue this thread aligning to the topic and ponder if at all Hinduism made a conquest in the west, how, when and is it sustained. Of course, if people run out of thoughts, no harm in exiting too.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sridharvasudevan Ji,

As I understand the rules for posting in Forums like this:

1. The owner/starter of the thread decides how much 'veering off' from the topic is allowed tolerated. If Sri Nacchinarkiniyan Ji says that he does not want certain discussions here, then everyone else should observe that rule.

2. After all Forums like these are created to discuss and debate in a civil manner as these are civic forums. No topic should be off limits as long as the discussions don't become personal (not always easy to observe). But I think that given our religion as usual is in the middle of transformation / growth / change, it is very appropriate for members to discuss their personal ideology in the Forum. I think others can benefit from that. But of course, it is within the rights of the moderators to moderate any such discussions.

I hope Sri pannvalan ji reconsiders his decision to exit. His postings have provided at least me with new insights. Sir, please stay.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Savi3]

"I hope Sri pannvalan ji reconsiders his decision to exist." (!)

exist or exit is not the dilemma?! It seems both agree!!

I couldn't resist one more veering off!

Hi guys! i am new. I am sometimes serious too. Watch out for my further postings.:jaw:

 

[KRS]

Oops, sorry. My mistake. I have now edited. Thanks for pointing out.
Regards,
KRS

exist or exit is not the dilemma?! It seems both agree!!

I couldn't resist one more veering off!

Hi guys! i am new. I am sometimes serious too. Watch out for my further postings.:jaw:

 

[happyhindu]

One small correction: I think KRS-ji has misunderstood the exiting part (he never said anything abt it, there is no reason). Pannvalan sir has always been courteous and am certain everyone agrees we are thankful for his interaction, is a pleasure.

Another addition: Sometimes we have to choose b/w whether we want to be concerned abt our image or whether we prefer freeodom of expression over image portrayal. In a forum our anonymity makes no room for image or lets us let go of any if there is one, and we wud rather prefer freedom of expression as long as we do not violate the decorum of the forum. This is a great learning place. Anything that is uncomfortable can always be deleted by the moderators or by ourselves.

 

[KRS]

dear Srimathi HH Ji,

Thank you for the clarification. I thought I saw somewhere where Sri Pannvalan Ji wrote that it was his exit posting, and so I responded.

As you write and I concur that his postings have been illuminating.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Hello Everyone,

There were two or three people including me, who said few days earlier that we need to get back to track on the topic or it would be worth while exiting the thread. Same was the comment "exit the thread" from Pannvalan. Why don't we get back to the topic at least now? Please....

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

My hard disk crashed and I had to spend a couple of days to recover my data and reinstall the system. Unfortunately the draft of my next posting in the thread was lost.

Threads going off on a tangent is a common enough phenomena in this forum. I will post sometime during this week.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Vedism, Sanatana Dharma

I had said in my earlier post that the educated Hindus were not very happy with the name Hinduism.

The reasons given were:

1. The name Hindu was given by the Persians. It does not refer to the religion, but the people living on this side of the Sindhu river (Indus) river.

This is true. It is a term used by the Persians to denote the people and not the religion. The Hindu religion extended far beyond the Indus river, into what is today Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Since the Persians did not have a "S" Sindhu became Hindu.

2. This is not the term used by Hindus to describe their religion. It was given by the British.

It is again true that this term was used by the British. Initially they called the religion Brahminism (after Brahmins) and then Brahmanism (after Brahman). But these terms did not take into account all the aspects of Hinduism. So they took the Persian term and made it the name of the religion.

There was another development in the sixties which might have reinforced this renaming of the rename of the religion.

Islam was earlier referred to as Mohammedism or Mohammedanism. This was changed in the early sixties to Islam.

The word for the followers of Islam is "Muslim". It is sometimes transliterated as "Moslem", which some regard as offensive.

Until at least the mid 1960s, many English-language writers used the term Mohammedans or Mahometans. Muslims argued that the terms are offensive because they allegedly imply that Muslims worship Muhammad rather than God.

English writers of the 19th century and earlier sometimes used the words Mussulman, Musselman, or Mussulmaun. Variant forms of this word are still used by many Indo-European languages.

Now two of the terms thought of were Vedism and Sanatana Dharma.

Vedism was a word advocated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. David Frawley was also initially a supporter. But this lost out to the term Sanatana Dharma.

Sanatana Dharma: The eternal religion/law.

Now this term has not been used by Swami Vivekananda or the earlier Swamijis. Swami Sivananda has used the term, but not to describe the Hindu religion. The first person to have popularized it seems to be Swami Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (ISCKON).

There is no historical evidence of what the Hindus called their religion.

Sruitismiritivihita Sanatana Dharma is Hinduism as per the oldest definition available in a copper plate dating back to the Gupta period.

As per this definition only Shruti and Smiriti are included in Sanatana Dharma. There are some organization which have called it Sanatana Vaidic Dharma. The problem is that this excluded the Agamas, Tantras and the popular worship of village deities all over India.

This was considered to refer to the Orthodox Hindu religion only.

But this term has found more acceptance over a period of time. But the problem still exists that it means different things to different people. It is still to be accepted by all Hindus.

Of late there has been attempts to redefine Hinduism by organizations affiliated to a particular political party.

This kind of attempts to redefine Hinduism has led to some situations in the U.S about which I will post later.

 

[malgova.mango]

Rebuttals

dear sri sridharvasudevan ji,

your point is well taken. I am probably contributing mightily towards apparently dragging this thread away from what the author intended. I apologize.

However, the subject of this thread, in my opinion, is intimately connected with my discussions with sri mm ji here.

'my people' he says. Who are 'my people'?

there are always an interest groups everywhere and in anything...
so my people - is the people belong to our religious interest group.
common...

shankaracharyals are jagat gurus.

nobody argues that..

they are just that because true advaitha envelops everything within its loving fold.

another non-sense ....

advaitha - is a siddhanta to understand - that's all.
it doesn't envelop all - on contrary it says what is right or truth.

anything opposed to this is wrong and misleading...


people who seem to espouse advaitha but then bifurcate people as 'my people' and 'not my people' are not advaithins.

hey to say right as right and wrong as wrong is nothing wrong.
if one doesn't tell people wouldn't know it.

so please think before talking any "kundakka mandakka" logic.

they are the false prophets akin to a fundamentalist mullah.

another kundakka mandakka

sorry i am being harsh. I have heard enough. Sri mm ji boasts about knowing all 4 purushartas.

no i never, you said i should talk this and that - i said i 'll talk anything under the sun. Don't tell me you are bitten by envy

the basis of advaitha and life is humanity.

even non-humans can understand advaitha - so this is also another k-m


he thinks that by 'knowing' about advaitham he somehow is human. Because when one does 'dharma' everything else is taken care of. But the basis of dharma for a human being starts with empathy and knidness.

............. Not worth to comment....


no philosophy is superior to a human being's existence. They all exist for the welfare of the human and not vice versa.

another km - philosophy exist to elevate human misery.

he is perhaps a twenty percenter and i am probably less than that.
When he becomes a 100 percenter, he can come here and preach.

in our culture there is no preaching only teaching....

because by then he would be a different person.

another k-m....


regards,
krs

 

[happyhindu]

MM-ji...since this is never-ending, just wanted to share a few thots:

a) My mum grew up in a household where even vibuti was not used and the world began and ended with Rama-Krishna-Vishnu. In childhood she was taken to see only movies like Sampoorna Ramayanam, and the poor things had to see the same movies every year :lol: Her father was so strict and he didn't want his kids to be influenced by his wife's elders who he thot were ultra-modern for their times. Over the years my mum's exposure and influences have been wide and varied. But it looks like childhood habits are tuf to get rid off, esp after retirement, and there are things she holds on to. Certainly she is not like her parents. And she is not interested in philosophies, debates, knowing what's the ultimate truth and all that. All she knows is bhakti, bhajans and very little yoga. Am sure such content folk have their place under the sun. Hope you do not find anything wrong in her upbringing or in the way her mind works for its the same God that made you and her.

b) God has given me 2 eyes, 2 hands, even 2 nostrils for the breath of life....Can i not love 2 philosphies? No doubt Advaita is amazing...but if my mind also loves and likens to the maya-bheda and many other parts of VA, should i prevent it in anyway? Moreover when even for a machine like a computer, several programs can run on one platform...Can I not love 3 or many more philosophies...How are we to decide what is the ultimate truth when all these paths are here to exist..

Sir, can we not try to "prove" anything...This world is a beautiful place with so much diversity...it wud be so boring to have just one way...And yep, God did make it that way.

 

[malgova.mango]

HH!

Try to understand what is said ... then talk.

Regards

 

[happyhindu]

MM-ji,

Sanatana accepts all paths to the One divine. All roads lead to Rome. Some roads may be well contructed, tried, tested and used most often. The roads less travelled would still lead to the same destination.

 

[malgova.mango]

non-sense

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Interesting barrage of thoughts.....

Off topic discussions are natural and should not be suppressed if the discussion remains civil => my opinion...

mango, adhvaitham can easily be countered... just because you refuse to accept opposing views does not make it the absolute truth...

Regards

 

[happyhindu]

whoopsy....hope we are not going to get into counter arguments...am in love with all philosophies, including ones that does that do not fit into A, VA or D...hope there won't be any proving and disproving going haywire here..

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Interesting barrage of thoughts.....

Off topic discussions are natural and should not be suppressed if the discussion remains civil => my opinion...

mango, adhvaitham can easily be countered... just because you refuse to accept opposing views does not make it the absolute truth...

Regards

Please let me know when the discussions are (if ever) over, so that I can continue posting. My postings have become irrelevant here.

Thanks.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Please let me know when the discussions are (if ever) over, so that I can continue posting. My postings have become irrelevant here.

Thanks.

Little minds like mine like to chatter... for it is in this sort of self styled activity that we all take pleasure in and seem to seek the aim of life itself... but do not take my views to dissuade that of yours...

 

[happyhindu]

Sri-N-ji,

Sorry for the distractions....please continue.

 

[malgova.mango]

sesh!

vazha vazha kozhza kozha 'llam vendam.

Our scriputures are the ONLY available body of Knowledge which throws light on the subject - Jeeva , Jagath , Ishavara - enquiry.

The answers are given in the form of Mahavakyams which in turn are the Pramanas.

Advaithin's could check with Mahavakyams to ascertain their knowledge.

With VA and D what are the ascertaining factors?.

number 2 - How Jeevan Mukthas are possible in VA and D?

number 3 - Even if you are in Vaikunta - ignorance is still a possibility - the dwara bhalakas in their ignorance didn't allow the Rishi to enter. Because of the curse of the rishi they took births and opposed the very Lord they are supposed to protect.

Even in the place of VAIKUNDA - Ignorance is a possibility.

So how can one ascertain the correct Knowledge took place and Ignorance is removed by VA and D?

If you are willing to discuss within the framework of our scriptures then answer, if not just don't waste time.

Regards

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

vazha vazha kozhza kozha 'llam vendam.

It is the nature of the subject that makes it so....

Our scriputures are the ONLY available body of Knowledge which throws light on the subject - Jeeva , Jagath , Ishavara - enquiry.

The answers are given in the form of Mahavakyams which in turn are the Pramanas.

Our scriptures are no doubt the most illuminating texts which deal with the enquiry of the brahman...

With VA and D what are the ascertaining factors?.

Am not clear as to what your query is.. pls elaborate...

number 2 - How Jeevan Mukthas are possible in VA and D?

Who is a Jeevan Muktha? One who sees the form of god in every being, one who is neither attached nor detached, one who is even-minded is a Jeevan Muktha. It is not necessary that one should be an advaithin to be a Jeevan Muktha.

number 3 - Even if you are in Vaikunta - ignorance is still a possibility - the dwara bhalakas in their ignorance didn't allow the Rishi to enter. Because of the curse of the rishi they took births and opposed the very Lord they are supposed to protect.

We should not compare and contrast between bhakthi, logic and the mystical. Puranas are for explaining a specific concept... just like the panchatantra or hitopadesha... some may be true and there may be exaggerations...

If you read siva purana and kanda purana, one would laugh out loudly... the exaggerations there are so much that it takes the form of a chandamama story...

You would surely know how ganesha got his elephant head? Do you want that story to be believed?

Even in the place of VAIKUNDA - Ignorance is a possibility.

???? How?

So how can one ascertain the correct Knowledge took place and Ignorance is removed by VA and D?

If you are willing to discuss within the framework of our scriptures then answer, if not just don't waste time.

To the first part - we must first ascertain what the correct knowledge is...

To the second part - I cannot guarantee that I would discuss within our scriptures, for in doing so, I am restricting myself...

Regards

 

[malgova.mango]

well on puranas - I won't call it exaggarations - but definetly puzzles and riddles for us to solve.

It is a form of protection, where only people with shraddha and bhakti could unlock and gain insights.

Even if we assume your proposition that puranas are mystic and could not be ascertained...

Then the very term Vaikunda and Kailasa or for the sake Heaven is all mere mystic places...

So in VA and D reaching the place of Vaikunda as Mukthi itself is questionable.?


for question 2 - it is not a direct answer. give me that.

Mahavakyams are the ascertaining factors.. for the first part ...

outside our scriptures , there is no body of knowledge that we can refer to for discussion and so it is pointless...lets quit.