Questions about Hinduism

Answers

Hi,

1. I have a Hindu friend who fasts one day every week (and it's the same day every week not a different day). Can someone explain what this is for and why she does it so often (i.e. not once a month or a few times a year). It doesn't matter if this day is a special occasion - she still fasts.

2. Another friend has a photo of her "Guru" in her house. I've always understood that a "guru" is a teacher of some sort. Would this lady be like a "Godmother" to my friend or would she be related or just someone who would give religious advice ?

3. One necklace is of Sarasvati on her swan ... which i currently have I've worn the Sarasvati one a few times recently. I just want to ask - is it insulting to a Hindu for a non Hindu to wear these things or not ? Just want to know as I don't want to offend anyone.

Thanks.

Hi,

Sanaatana Dharma as I like to call it, [url]for reasons that I explained here,[/url] is illustrative not prescriptive.

However, because Hindus are not taught about their religion formally, the answers will differ between Hindus. Therefore, even if you had asked, your friends might not have been able to provide an accurate answer. I shall try to answer your queries:

1. No religious need. However, the human body does benefit from such a weekly fasting. Hence this practice was built into Hindu customs. Those who wish to follow it, but it is by no means obligatory.

2. Guru is a Sanskrit word for which no exact English equivalent exists.

Nearest would be "preceptor".

It does not even have to be human, though you might find that concept strange.

However, usually human, for obvious reasons.

A preceptor can be a parent, a relative, a teacher or just someone revered, even from a long time ago; and therefore without any direct contact at all.

3. No problem. Go for it.

Regards.

Prashna

Late night ramblings, but hopefully helpful

Hiya Happygirl,

I don't call myself a Hindu, but I do regularly attend puja at a Murugan temple and a Mahashakti temple, and there I sing bhajans and recite mantras which I know from years of repetition. I have a picture of Lord Ganesh in my car, and a picture of Lord Krishna in my wallet. I also have pictures of my guru and Divine Mother in my house. My guru explained the Divine to me, and his explanations always came from a position of first-hand experience.

A little while ago at a temple I found myself in the odd situation of being asked by a group of elderly Hindu ladies an aspect of a particular festival concerning Lord Murugan and his consorts (Prashna should have been there). They came up to me for some reason assuming I knew, so I explained it to them to the best of my ability, and they went away happy. It did seem a little strange to me at the time as I was brought up nominally in the Church of England, and my early religious experience was confined to attending baptisms and weddings.

(Some of the following few thoughts I've expressed on another thread, but as I'd never put these thoughts into words before or since I'll repeat a bit here, and try and word it better while I'm at it...)

I subscribe to the philosophy of Sanaatana Dharma, which is often equated with the Hindu religion. The reason, though, that I don't call myself a Hindu is that, to me, the philosophy of Sanatana Dharma transcends the different labels we give to our particular paths to God. It also embraces all of those different labels and allows that God can be worshipped in His universality.

Sanaatana Dharma does not distinguish between religion, culture or ethnic origin because God is one, but we give Him/Her many names. Sanaatana Dharma is not a religion or doctrine in itself, but is rather the impulse behind all spiritual striving.

A side affect of coming to understand the Divine through the philosophy of Sanaatana Dharma is that it gave me a deeper respect and love for Jesus. I also became a great fan of Saint Francis, and was inspired to gain a greater understanding of all faiths. I can pray in any church, temple, mosque, or synagogue and find God there.

My path has led me to revere the Divine Mother in all her various forms, but because of my background I often visualise Her as Mother Mary. If you come from a Christian background, then perhaps you could look at your Saraswati necklace and also see Mary in her form.

If Sanaatana Dharma is a synonym for Hinduism as many say, then we're all Hindus and I don't have a problem with that.

If Sanaatana Dharma is a synonym for Hinduism as many say, then we're all Hindus and I don't have a problem with that.

Precisely what Swami Vivekananda stated and explained in his address:

"Why Vedanta is the universal religion!"

Regards.

Prashna

Precisely what Swami Vivekananda stated and explained in his address:

"Why Vedanta is the universal religion!"

Hurray!

I was wondering what you might have to say about my interpretation, Prashna. 🙂

Swami Vivekananda's speech

Hurray!

I was wondering what you might have to say about my interpretation, Prashna. 🙂

Whatever I might say pales into insignificance if you could read what the most brilliant exponent of Sanaatana Dharma in living memory had to say.

110 years have passed since he said it and still it has not sunk in.

But here it is:

[url]The actual address in this page.[/url]

Excerpt from the last paragraph:

Gentlemen, I have tried to place before you a few of the most brilliant points of the Advaita system,
and now the time has come when it should be carried into practice,
not only in this country but everywhere.

Modern science and its sledge-hammer blows are pulverising the porcelain foundations of all dualistic religions everywhere. ...

Regards.

Prashna

I've come across two quite separate academic studies into the origins of the New Age movement, and both of them concluded that it mainly began stemming from the twin sources of Theosophy and the introduction of Vedanta ('Hinduism' as they called it) into the West. And of course Vivekananda was the major player in doing the latter. (Not trying to imply that the New Age at all still reflects those two origins, but it's an interesting aspect on Vivekananda's work here all the same, that he expanded minds far beyond just the acquisition of specific 'converts' to actual Vedanta.)

V

he expanded minds far beyond just the acquisition of specific 'converts' to actual Vedanta.

If Vedanta is the 'universal religion', then we're already all signed up, so can't convert to anything. Whatever spiritual work any of us do is Sanaatana Dharma.

R's simple summary.

If Vedanta is the 'universal religion', then we're already all signed up, so can't convert to anything. Whatever spiritual work any of us do is Sanaatana Dharma.

Agreed.

Actually, who am I to agree or disagree?

The greatest exponent of Sanaatana Dharma in living memory, Ramakrishna Paramahansa (v shortens him to just R, quite right too) put it far more simply:

Whoever loves sentient beings
___ serves the Infinite.

OK, for V, here's the original in Bengali,

Jiive prem kare jei jan
__sei jan sebiche Ishwara.

Live long and prosper.

Prashna

Thank you all - I will now wear my Saarasvati necklace without worrying it will offend anyone. This thread was inspired by Prashna's thread on the sarasvati puja and I thought - well I may as well ask the other questions about Hinduism while I'm about it. 🙂

Thank you all - I will now wear my Saarasvati necklace without worrying it will offend anyone. This thread was inspired by Prashna's thread on the sarasvati puja and I thought - well I may as well ask the other questions about Hinduism while I'm about it. 🙂

You're welcome, happygirl.

Whoever loves sentient beings
___ serves the Infinite.

The philosophy of Sanaatana Dharma encapsulated in seven words. Brilliant.

Do no harm.

The philosophy of Sanaatana Dharma encapsulated in seven words. Brilliant.

Not quite, Barafundle.

Had Ramakrishna Paramahansa taken the hippocratic oath

or indeed had he read the Isaac Asimov's immortal Foundation series of novels;

he might have made a shorter and simpler encapsulation;

in just three short words:

Do no harm.

Just that!

Nothing more!

That encapsulates the whole of Sanaatana Dharma!

The rest is just commentary!

But Isaac Asimov was yet to be born, [url]on 2nd January 1920 according to this.[/url]

[url]R passed away on 16 August, 1886, according to this.[/url]

Live long and prosper.

And please continue to apply those 3 precious words, as you have been doing:

Do no harm.

Prashna

I know what you mean, Prashna, but personally I do tend to prefer...
Whoever loves sentient beings
___ serves the Infinite.

Do no harm sounds a bit too passive for me.

What about

LOVE

That's shorter still and says it all.

Do no harm!

I know what you mean, Prashna, but personally I do tend to prefer...
Whoever loves sentient beings
___ serves the Infinite.

Do no harm sounds a bit too passive for me.

What about

LOVE

That's shorter still and says it all.

Not really, Barafundle.

There is still the difference between the active voice and the passive voice.

IMO, the expression "LOVE" is passive.

Whereas, 'Do no harm' is an active statement;

if only because the verb "do" is an active verb in the English language.

I do not expect you to grasp it as yet,
how positive and active that statement is!

However, whether, you grasp it or not, it remains an active statement for all Hindu's

or in spirit, Hindu's.

The statement in Christianity:

"Do unto your neighbours as you would have done unto you"

only states the practice!

Sanaatana Dharma, especially through its Upanishads, sets out the principle.

Regards.

Prashna

Not really, Barafundle.

There is still the difference between the active voice and the passive voice.

IMO, the expression "LOVE" is passive.

Whereas, 'Do no harm' is an active statement;

if only because the verb "do" is an active verb in the English language.

Don't quite get that, Prashna. 'Do nothing' has the active verb 'do in it but isn't active; it rather emphasises the absence of doing.

Also, I was thinking of 'Love' as a verb.

Just realised as I'm writing this that it doesn't really matter :). You say tomarto, I say tomayto.

I hope I have done no harm, and send you love,
Graham

Do no harm!

Don't quite get that, Prashna. 'Do nothing' has the active verb 'do in it but isn't active; it rather emphasises the absence of doing.

Also, I was thinking of 'Love' as a verb.

Just realised as I'm writing this that it doesn't really matter :). You say tomarto, I say tomayto.

I hope I have done no harm, and send you love,
Graham

I regret, Barafundle

that you have misunderstood the essence of Sanaatana Dharma.

I never wrote "Do nothing".

If you read my post yet again, you will find that I actually wrote:

"Do no harm".

The two are different, very different indeed!

Regards.

Prashna

I regret, Barafundle

that you have misunderstood the essence of Sanaatana Dharma.

I never wrote "Do nothing".

If you read my post yet again, you will find that I actually wrote:

"Do no harm".

And if you read my post I never said you wrote 'Do nothing'. It was a comparison with your phrase for the purposes of clarification. Obviously clarification didn't work 🙂

Do no harm.

And if you read my post I never said you wrote 'Do nothing'. It was a comparison with your phrase for the purposes of clarification. Obviously clarification didn't work 🙂

Indeed, you didn't, Barafundle.

And if you read my post I never said you wrote that I said 'Do nothing'.

I feel that we are going round in circles!

To what end?

I repeat, the shortest and simplest encapsulation of Sanaatana Dharma has always been and remains:

Do no harm.

Simple as that.

Regards.

Prashna

Indeed, you didn't, Barafundle.

And if you read my post I never said you wrote that I said 'Do nothing'.

I feel that we are going round in circles!

To what end?

Don't know. What I wrote seemed clear to me at the time. We need an adjudication. 🙂

No need, Barafundle.

At the end, you are your own finest adjudicator.

Regards.

Prashna

How strange and very human to be arguing over different ways of saying the same thing! 😮

Here is a parable to remind us of our folly...

I was walking across a bridge and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. So I ran over and said, 'Stop! Don't do it. There's so much to live
for!'

He said, 'Like what?'

I said , 'Well, are you religious?

'Yes.'

I said, 'Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?'

'Christian.'

I said 'Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?'

'Protestant.'

I said 'Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?'

'Baptist.'

I said 'Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God, or Baptist Church of the
Lord?'

He said, 'Baptist Church of God.'

I said 'Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?'

'Reformed Baptist Church of God.'

I said 'Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?'

He said, 'Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation or 1915.'

I said, 'DIE HERETIC SCUM!' and I pushed him off.

Seven words, three words, one word? What's a word or two between friends?
Love and big kisses,
Graham

I do not recall any argument!

What I do recall is

"What's a word or two between friends?"

Although I would draw a line at kisses!

I do not recall any argument!

Nor me. 🙂

(Reminder of kisses... XXXXXX)

I could see where this was going so freely admit that I just completely skipped about the last ten or so posts. 🙂

'Do no' is definitely passive. It's an admonish to not act (in this or that way). 'LOVE' is the most powerful and active force in the universe, IMHO: it's our love to do something which drives us to all positive and constructive action; love is the energy which drives personal action, and the universe itself; I see even gravity as being the attraction of Love expressed through the supposedly inanimate.

V

'Do no' is definitely passive. It's an admonish to not act (in this or that way). 'LOVE' is the most powerful and active force in the universe, IMHO: it's our love to do something which drives us to all positive and constructive action; love is the energy which drives personal action, and the universe itself; I see even gravity as being the attraction of Love expressed through the supposedly inanimate.

V

I agree with all the above, V (don't tell Prashna).

Do no harm!

I agree with all the above, V (don't tell Prashna).

Too late, Barafundle!

Prashna, if he exists at all, already knows.

The following may be regarded as off-topic. If so, any reader has my apologies. Start of off-topic discussion :offtopic:

Sanaatana Dharma, or Hinduism as it is referred to more frequently, in the West especially, is quite unique. It is a multi-level, multi-layer structure! The full depth and beauty of it is visible to few Hindus even, let alone many Westerners. So I can well understand your perception of what I have posted.

Nevertheless, I maintain, the summary statement "Do no harm" :

1. is not passive at all, but an incredibly active statement.

2. adequately summarises the whole of Sanaatana Dharma,
provided one is inclined to explore it.

However, I am happy that both you and V seem to accept the first 7-word summary readily. It is indeed adequate most of the way; which is why R used it. Most Hindus even are happy to accept it, readily subscribing to the view expounded with erudition by V.

V's summary that "love" is the most powerful and important principle was indeed the basis for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's teaching, as I have explained in Msg 4 of [url]this thread. [/url]In the current era, 'Kali Yuga' as termed in Sanaatana Dharma, it is indeed the best way.

Even in the golden age, it was regarded as the shortest route.

But it is not the only route.

The principle of love, IMO is a sub-set of the 'Do no harm' principle.

It is easier to understand this, if I cite the full text of that principle, [url]here, given under item 1. = 'First Law'.[/url]

How that central principle of Sanaatana Dharma is translated in practice was well illustrated by Isaac Asimov in a series of short stories, [url]which were later compiled into a book called[/url]
[url]‘I, Robot.’[/url]

And later still, into a film, which I have not seen as yet.

End of off –topic discussion :offtopic:

Regards.

Prashna

The principle of love, IMO is a sub-set of the 'Do no harm' principle.

It is easier to understand this, if I cite the full text of that principle, [url]here, given under item 1. = 'First Law'.[/url]

At the risk of sparking off more ping-pong posts (:o deep breath, here goes...) you hilight the very point I was making. I don't see Love as a sub-set of anything. Love works as a noun and a verb, and is complete in itself.

Asimov's laws apply to robots, and robots are not sentient. They are therefore incapable of love. If one cannot experience love, then I don't believe one can practice Sanaatana Dharma. God is Love.

Love,
Graham

I just remembered Vulcan's don't experience human emotion, so this might not be the end of this thread. 🙁

A note for the science officer's log book: Love, like God, transcends all reason and logic, so is beyond analysis.

At the risk of sparking off more ping-pong posts...

But why, Barafundle.

What purpose would that serve?

Why not let it rest and accept that there are many ways of perceiving reality?

Regards.

Prashna

Don't know. What I wrote seemed clear to me at the time. We need an adjudication. 🙂

Conspiritualist announces
“40 – love,
3 sets to Love…..
...Game ‘Love’
... ... ... “Love Wins!”

IMESHO 😮