The term 'mlechha'

[il_guy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Namaste,

What does the term 'mlechha' mean? Does it just mean non-Hindus? Thanks.

Kind Regards,

Ganapathi Narayana

 

[happyhindu]

Dear il-guy-ji,

Mlechha seems to have been applied to diff people. It was also a derogatory term in one time. No, it does not mean any or all non-hindus.

Shall put out info on various terms soon, with the hope that is might be corrected or inputs given for a broader insight.

Regards.

 

[malgova.mango]

Dear Sri Ganpat!

Yes - Whoever doesn't subscribe to the views of Vedas is Mlechha - Bavishya Purana says the world will be full of Mlechhas in Kali yuga.

They may be good or bad - but lacking the ultimate goal of life - they will waste their time in earthly pursuits.

Hope it answers

Regards
malgova.mango

 

[il_guy]

Namaste malgova.mango,

Yes, it does answer my question. Thank you very much!

Regards,

il_guy

 

[Ramaa]

Dear MMji,

On Mileccha you said:

They may be good or bad - but lacking the ultimate goal of life - they will waste their time in earthly pursuits.

Great explanation indeed! Keep up your good work!

 

[happyhindu]

MMji has given a very nice answer indeed.

Just in case still interested, here are a few definitions:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha

2) Karna derides the level of dharma in Shalyas's domains (madra and vahika) but Shalya answers back to the effect that dharma was weak in Anga (a vedic country ruled by Karna) as well; and Mlechha figures in that dialogue: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08045.htm [easy one 2 figure out].

3) Apart from the wiki list, you may also want to consider the possibility (since nothing proven yet) about Melchizedek's descendents being called Mlechhas (btw its bn speculated that shem was melchizedek and since shem's sons was elam and assur, the mlechha term sort of in a way seems to fits in possibly as well).

Regards.

 

[il_guy]

Namaste happyhindu,

Thank you for the Wikipedia link. It was enlightening. You're going biblical on us eh? I've never read the complete Bible. Only some chapters. I find the Old Testament to be barbaric. The New Testament is wonderful with Jesus' teachings. *Sigh*...if only his followers would adhere more closely to those teachings. The only one of his teachings I disagree with is the one where he says he's the only way to the Father. That just doesn't sit right with me.

I've read things where we don't know for sure if the current Bible is really his words or not. I guess at the Council of Nicea (?) they decided which books to put in the Bible and which to leave out. So, we may never know what is what in regards to the Bible. But, the New Testament still has wonderful teachings for all to ascribe too.

Regards,

Justin

 

[happyhindu]

Namaste Justin-ji,

Its quite a world of contrasts. You are inclined towards Sanatan and for a while in between i was inclined towards Christianity. And i did manage to read the full King James Version of the Bible a few years back for the only reason that it was in English and did not require translation. i remember there were so many beautiful teachings in it.

The only way to the father is thru me was told by Krishna before Christ as well. There are many that beleive they both were the same soul consciousness and hence the same soul said the same thing in diff places at diff times. When they said 'thru me' it is belived they said it is thru this consciousness (by knowing it and becoming one with it) that one attains salvation. And since they both were (or had become one with) the consciousness, they both referred to it as "me".

Unfortunately, what became 'Christianity' as a Church was decided by various councils that were more into power struggle rather than knowing oneself.

There are indian siddhas who beleive that Christ followed Sanatan Dharma and took it back to the middle east to teach it there. And yes me too beleives He did. Here is a nice link: http://www.atmajyoti.org/spirwrit-the_christ_of_india.asp

Regards.

 

[il_guy]

Namaste happyhindu,

Interesting, quite interesting. Can you explain what is always meant by "The Son of God" and "Savior of Mankind"? These two statements I don't understand. Maybe you, or someone else, could shed some light on them?

Regards,

Justin

 

[happyhindu]

Namaste happyhindu,

Interesting, quite interesting. Can you explain what is always meant by "The Son of God" and "Savior of Mankind"? These two statements I don't understand. Maybe you, or someone else, could shed some light on them?

Regards,

Justin

Justinji, this what i know at present:

Son of God:
God is consiousness. Jesus was born of kumari garbham (virgin birth). He was conceived as an amsa (part) of the God conciousness. So He is called Son of God.

Saviour of mankind:
To Christians, this applies to Christ alone. But to us, it applies to the entire concept of Gods and God.

The adam-eve's story of the fruit (of knowledge) or the apple (kundam) sitatued at the end of the coccygeal plexus with the snake (lucifer (?)) around it actually signifies sacred knowledge; the knowing of which leads us to redemption from re-birth or salvation (moksha). This other male-female equivalents are (yang-yin) (shiva-shakti) (lakshmi-vishnu) (svaha-agni) and so on.

Yogananda Paramahansa explained about the Adam-Eve story partly in the book "Autobiography of a Yogi". The sephirot is no different from the kundalini concept in essence, just explained somewhat differently.

So when Christ is called "saviour of mankind", it is intended to mean as "He, the salvation for mankind". Christ meant salvation thru "me" or "Christ's Consiousness" which is God-Consciousness, which in turn means "salvation thru this knowledge". So to us, it is the knowlegde (vid) that is the saviour of the mankind.

Christ, like Krishna, espoused Bhakti and surrender as means to it. But unfortunately, the path of the knowledge was not explained clearly in the Bible as Krishna did clearly in the Gita.

The concept of Bhudevi-Narayana-Shridevi and the concept of Siddhi-Ganesha-Buddhi merges with the Shiva-Shakti or duality [male-female] concept. Ganesha is Mooladhara and Narayana is both the latent energy within the Mooladhara and the Sushumna (which Narayana represents). However, without power of Shakti, this Mooladhara cannot be awakened and Shakti does not ascend. Hence, the propitiating of Devi or feminine energy and chanting of Devi Mahatmya by those that seek to awaken the kundalini. In some story-versions, this Shakti (as Parvati) is seen / represented as the sister of Vishnu. Narayana is also considered the creator of it all.

Some say Aayana is a unit of measure (sun's journey time) and therefore 'Nara-Aayana' intends to mean some type of a unit of measure, in terms of a man's journey time. To complete the journey sucessfully wud mean to attain the abode of Narayana or salvation (moksha). Which abode, Vaikuntam or the one prior to it might be explained differently by diff seers. The consciousnss itself, however is Shiva. All this is a very elaborate explanation and i am not yet clear about certain parts in it.

Plus, it is possible, they mean 'attaining and becoming one with Shiva' as one level of consciousness; and 'attaining vaikuntam' as the next (advanced?) level of consiousness to be attained. All this has given rise to various philosophies, such as advaita, dwaita, vishistadvaita and various concepts.

i think i have given you an information-overload for the simple 2 phrases u asked me. hope i have not confused you

regards.

 

[il_guy]

Namaste happyhindu,

Thank you for those explanations! It is indeed something to ponder. It wasn't an information overload, but I may have to re-read it a few times to grasp it. But, I do such with other information as well. Some, I eventually grasp, and some, it eludes me altogether (such as computer programming ). I tried to understand that stuff and couldn't do it. There's a lot of math involved, and math and I don't get along very well. When adding, I still have to use my fingers. Subtraction I can only sometimes get. But beyond that, such as division and the harder stuff, it eludes me and always will. At least in this lifetime.

Regards,

Justin

 

[happyhindu]

Namaste happyhindu,

Thank you for those explanations! It is indeed something to ponder. It wasn't an information overload, but I may have to re-read it a few times to grasp it. But, I do such with other information as well. Some, I eventually grasp, and some, it eludes me altogether (such as computer programming ). I tried to understand that stuff and couldn't do it. There's a lot of math involved, and math and I don't get along very well. When adding, I still have to use my fingers. Subtraction I can only sometimes get. But beyond that, such as division and the harder stuff, it eludes me and always will. At least in this lifetime.

Regards,

Justin

Justin-ji,

It is deep inside all of us. We are all born with it. It will come out some way or the other, some how or the other. But as they say 'yad bhavam tad bhavati' (we become what we think), our effort in terms of reaffirming is also needed, as aham brahmasmi (i am brahman), and automatically one is on the path to realizing brahman. Free-will is created by divine-will. Divine-will was created by the karma of our free-will in the past. Whether or not the free-will is destained to be manifest in the current birth, that however is decided by God alone. One can only propitiate and leave the result to Him to decide.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Justin-ji,

i liked this and wanted to share it with you, please do see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXHirGaoddY&feature=related

 

[il_guy]

Namaste happyhindu,

Thank you! What an awesome video! Why is it that a lot of people equate the Shivling with the male reproductive organ? Is this incorrect? I always understood the Shivling to represent the formless Brahman. Maybe this is incorrect? Thanks again for giving me that link!

Regards,

Justin

 

[happyhindu]

Namaste Justin-ji,

The linga is never present without a yoni base. So i wonder why ppl do not see the Shivalinga as a complete unit. As a whole unit, it is meant to signify the male-female energy matrix, both of which are incomplete without each other.

Some say the Shiva linga signifies the apple-like Kundam of mooladhara. In siddha parlance the Shiva linga signifies a single beam of light, that juts out right from its base at the mooladhara and upto sahasrara. In that way, it is the light along the sushumna. Hence, it is enlightenment.

There are ppl who will snigger that hindus worship a lingam. i wud attribute such attitude to lack of knowledge. We do not see sexuality energy b/w male-female as anything sinful or negative. Instead we seek to be delivered from the sin of repeated re-birth.

Regards.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi Happyhindu Ji,

In the Chinese symbolism, Lao Tzu, the father of Taoism (very close to our own Advaitha), has spoken of the same force. If you have seen their symbol, it is a circle enclosed by two fishes, black and white each, except for their eyes, which are of opposite color.

To me, this comes very close to our own symbol of the lingam. This tells me the universality of our faith.

Namaskarams,
KRS

 

[malgova.mango]

justin ji!

you must be far learned than you profess! Good humility.

regards

 

[happyhindu]

To me, this comes very close to our own symbol of the lingam. This tells me the universality of our faith.

And siddhars maintain that Lao Tse was none other than Bhogar....

And that beam of light is also called Hari (Ari) by some...