which deity do you worship - and why?

oops, yes - thank you to both Prashna and Sunanda for bringing that typo to my attention. I meant to write "Calcutta" - i have since edited the post.

:dft001: 🙂

Another silly but very ironic fact. Kali is most widely worshipped in the city of Kolkata which used to be spelled Calcutta. It wasn't until after my interest in Kali (and my desire to one day visit Hardiwar and Dakshineswar :043:) that i realized the spelling of the city name was changed to Kolkata. Big deal..right? Well, remove the beginning "K" and the last three letters (ata) and umm....you have my exact last name. So again, silly maybe - but still - definitely ironic.

pity when you edited, nishira, that you didnt give the reason, i.e. to please prashna's pernicketiness!!

i just read that about a million times to see wtf was going on!! :022:

ooops... i got interupted mid post... so now i see what went on!

I didn't pick up on the typo-spelling thing, as I read it psychologically as you meant it, without noticing. Which reminds me of a simply hilarious "Communication Skills" workshop we had today at work - but it only works and tricks you if given verbally; it wouldn't work in text form here as the brain then picks up on the tricks. (We read slower than we talk and listen.)

Sunny, re the spider deity (desperate attempt to stay on-topic!), it was big, it was fast, and it was about to disappear into the garish top pattern of my bed's duvet! No thanks. :033:

I worship Mother Nature (doesn't just about everyone though?). I know there's something much bigger than us. But when I pray I pray to the Mother & Father Spirit.

pity when you edited, nishira, that you didnt give the reason, i.e. to please prashna's pernicketiness!!

Why! Thank you, Rosie!

What an unexpected pleasure (only in the human sense, of course. Vulcans do not have the same sense of pleasure or pain).

It's not often that I get compliments for my attention to detail; at least; not on Terra Firma. That peculiar trait is a feature of Vulcan upbringing. Therefore, recognition for the same from a human is doubly welcome.

Thank you, Rosie. Really, I mean it. :033:

Live long and prosper.

Prashna

oops, yes - thank you to both Prashna and Sunanda for bringing that typo to my attention. I meant to write "Calcutta" - i have since edited the post.

:dft001: 🙂

Thank you Nishira, for correcting the typo. I regret to say that it was bothering me, because of my long Vulcan training re attention to detail.

I have not commented upon many other minor errors but that one involving a proper noun and my hometown was troublesome.

Anyway, you were actually quite correct the first time, even though you may not have realised it. Sanskrit is an extremely phonetic language and Bengali is a very close derivative. Kolkata has always been pronounced Kolkata. It was only the British who called it Calcutta. That spelling did not resemble the pronunciation even remotely. It took about 50 years of independence to use the spelling that most closely resembles the pronunciation.

So you see; you were right all along. It was always Kolkata. And it is now Kolkata; in writing.

Of course, English being non-phonetic and lacking the precision of phonetic languages, it still does not help the English speaking people as much as it is hoped.

Regards.

Prashna

I have not commented upon many other minor errors but that being on a proper noun and on my Home town was troublesome.

And "Home town" is actually written "hometown" or, sometimes erroneously, "home-town". So we may as well all not be too pernickety. :011::011::011::011::015:

And "Home town" is actually written "hometown" or, sometimes erroneously, "home-town". So we may as well all not be too pernickety. :011::011::011::011::015:

Thank you V for the comment.

Sometimes I have only seconds to compose and draft a post. This was one!

That results in some errors slipping through. You spotted one. Well done!

I am polishing half of our ground floor today!

I still have not finished.

But thank you anyway!

Regards.

Prashna

Does anybody feel drawn to Shiva?

I do a daily puja to Shiv Bhagwan every morning. It's been part of my daily prayers now since my early teens. I used to do japam mala chanting Om Namah Shivaya. However, my mala naturally broke a few years back and couldn't be fixed. After that I had little inclination to pray with another, so I now I do a shiv ling puja in the mornings. I find it refreshes my spirit as much as my shower has cleansed my body.

my morning chants are from the tradition of Bhakti Yoga of Devotion, in this yoga seperateness is not seen as a roadblock on the path, it is the path.

Followers of this path of devotion become purified through the intensity of their longing for God in whatever form it appeals to them most....this interaction of God is called the ' Divine Lila '......the moth flies closer and closer to the flame until it is drawn into the fire....I see this form of chanting as the best for me.......deeply intense and personal.

And when he sees me in all,
And sees all in me,
Then I never leave him
And he never leaves me.
And he, who in this oneness of love,
Loves me inwhatever he sees,
Wherever this man may live,
In truth, this man lives with me.

Krishna speaking to arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita

Oakapple xx

my moning chants are from the tradition of Bhakti Yoga of Devotion,

And when he sees me in all,
And sees all in me,
Then I never leave him
And he never leaves me.
And he, who in this oneness of love,
Loves me inwhatever he sees,
Wherever this man may live,
In truth, this man lives with me.

Krishna speaking to arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita

Oakapple xx

Hi Oakapple,

Fascinating!

Would that quote be from the Gita 12:6-7, by any chance?

From the chapter titled: Bhakti Yoga!

Regards.

Prashna

Hi Prashna,

Yes roughly translated:

But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Prtha-for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

are the right words but I like to keep it simple!!

Oakapple xx

Hi Prashna,

Yes roughly translated:

But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Prtha-for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

are the right words but I like to keep it simple!!

Oakapple xx

Thank you, Oakapple,

for your reply.

As you know, the Gita covers the full spectrum of Sanatana Dharma, in particular, the major paths:

Bhakti Yoga
Karma Yoga and
JnAna Yoga.

and several prior paths eg sAnkhya Yoga.

Hence the proliferation of bhAsyas. I personally have no preference for bhakti yoga, although I am aware that the GitA does extol its virtues very clearly. While it is indeed the shortest path, it also has its pitfalls, one of which is very obvious at this time in human history.

Regards.

Prashna

Hi Prashna,

Yes roughly translated:

But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Prtha-for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

are the right words but I like to keep it simple!!

Oakapple xx

Thank you Oakapple for that citation.

May I offer in return one of my many favourite citations from the GitA:

4.7 O scion of the Bharata dynasty, whenever there is a decline one virtue and increase of vice, then do I manifest Myself.[INDENT]O scion of the Bharata dynasty, yada yada hi, whenever; bhavati, there is; a glanih, decline, decrease; dharmasya, of virtue consisting of the duties of castes and stages of life of living beings, which are the means to achieving properity and Liberation; and abhyutthanam, increase, rise; adharmasya, of vice; tada, then; do aham, I; srjami, manifest; atmanam, Myself, through Maya.[/INDENT]

[INDENT]Why?[/INDENT]

4.8 For the protection of the pious, the destruction of the evil-doers, and establishing virtue, I manifest Myself in every age.[INDENT]Paritranaya, for the protection; sadhunam, of the pious, the followers of the virtuous path; vinasaya, for the destruction; duskrtam, of the evil-doers, of the sinful ones; and also dharmasamsthapanarthaya, for establishing virtue fully;-for that purpose, sambhavami, I manifest Myself; yuge yuge, in every age.[/INDENT]

4.9 He who thus knows truly the divine birth and actions of Mine does not get rebirth after casting off the body. He attains Me, O Arjuna.[INDENT]Yah, he who; evam, thus, as described; vetti, knows tattvatah, truly, as they are in reality; that divyam, divine, supernatural; janma, birth, which is a form of Maya; ca karma, and actions, such as protection of the pious, etc.; mama, of Mine; na eti, does not get; punarjanma, rebirth; tyaktva, after casting off; this deham, body. Sah, he; eti, attains, comes to; mam, Me-he gets Liberated, O Arjuna.[/INDENT]

[INDENT]This path of Liberation has not been opened recently. What then? Even in earlier days-[/INDENT]

4.10 Many who were devoid of attachment, fear and anger, who were absorbed in Me, who had taken refuge in Me, and were purified by the austerity of Knowledge, have attained My state.[INDENT]Bahavah, many; vita-raga-bhaya-krodhah, who were devoid of attachment, fear and anger; manmayah, who were absorbed in Me, who were knowers of Brahman, who were seers of (their) identity with God; mam upasrithah, who had taken refuge only in Me, the supreme God, i.e. who were steadfast in Knowledge alone; and were putah, purified, who had become supremely sanctified; jnana-tapasa, by the austerity of Knowledge-Knowledge itself, about the supreme Reality, being the austerity; becoming sanctified by that austerity of Knowledge-; agatah, have attained; madbhavam, My state, Goodhood, Liberation.[/INDENT]

[INDENT]The particular mention of 'the austerity of Knowledge' is to indicate that steadfastness in Knowledge does not depend on any other austerity.[/INDENT]

[INDENT]'In that case, You have love and aversion, because of which You grant the state of identity with Yourself only to a few but not to others?'[/INDENT]
From:

Live long and prosper.

Prashna

As you know, the Gita covers the full spectrum of Sanatana Dharma, in particular, the major paths:

Bhakti Yoga
Karma Yoga and
JnAna Yoga.

and several prior paths eg sAnkhya Yoga.

Hi Prashna and All,

The fulness of this subject doesn't really belong under Hinduism, maybe, as it far transcends Hinduism. But then again, maybe it does belong under Hinduism, as that's the faith my comments would address.

IMHO, if we take the fulness of the meaning of Sanatana Dharma, I'll tell you what I receive from this. First of all, I earnestly believe that there must be progressive revelation in the spiritual field of life. Add to that, that humans with karma, and still in incarnation, only know a percentage of whatever we might call 'Truth' which percentage can be debated, but call it IMHO 1-2%!

So under the real meaning of Sanatana Dharma, IMHO, we know almost nothing of it as yet. Certainly we don't know it all if we believe in progressive revelation, along the lines of paradigm shifts in science. That such progressive revelation in human spirituality has continuously occurred seems undeniable. So evidently we don't know 'All Truth' by any means.

So what might that Truth be? We only have glimpses of it in the existing major world religions IMHO. So Sanatana Dharma by definition isn't found or held to a huge extent within 'Hinduism'. Some is found better in extant sources, but most is still to come to us, to humanity. By that, I mean that it won't come as some minor addition to 'Hinduism', as it will as all these things always are, be so revolutionary that no existing faith or belief-system will encompass it. It will have to be it's own new thing - call it 'religion' or something else. 🙂 But Christianity, Islam, Hinduism ... they won't possibly be able to contain it IMO, as they are already too fixed.

I mentioned this in another thread: that Jesus' parable of new wine not being able to be contained within old bottles meant that new spiritual revelations cannot be contained within old and existing faiths/religions.

In sum, Sanatana Dharma transcends Hinduism and will in the end be something else. In fact, since the term "Sanatana Dharma" is so humanly-associated with Hinduism, I'd rather just call it "Truth" or "progressive revelation". History tells and shows that huge leaps of progressive revelation have needed a new "wineskin" - a new body of belief, practice, and ways of thought. The political rulers, and the opinions and mind-sets, of those in existing religions cannot accept, and will not, truly major new revelations. Psychologically they see the challenge as being a threat from "outside". And such spiritual revelations do continue. One could hardly believe, that they have stopped? I'm sure you agree.

We still see but a fraction of Truth, and what we see right now is partly contained in the world religions. Hinduism is one of those world religions. And the next step forward IMHO will be another thing altogether which no existing faith will agree to contain - as it will be just so new, so revolutionary, so beyond how people think at the moment. 🙂 It won't IMO just be an add-on to Hinduism, or to any faith.

That's how I really think about Sanatana Dharma.

V

...
That's how I really think about Sanatana Dharma.

V

Hi V,

You are certainly free to interpret the term "Sanatana Dharma" in any way you wish. This is after all a "free country", yet!

But as far as I am concerned, the belief system that is usually called "Hinduism" is far more accurately referred to as "Sanatana Dharma".

My reasons I have already explained in this thread:

No need to repeat!

Regards.

Prashna

Hi Prashna,

I've had in mind for a while to mention how I view "ultimate Truth" and that Hinduism, with much of the rest, is just one little hue of it. If it puts things in perspective, though I wouldn't call myself quite a Hindu, there's an online test you can do - "Which Religion Are You?" - at and on that out of, I think, 40 major beliefs, Hinduism came top for me with a full 97% which is high! (But I couldn't ever quite call myself a Hindu formally since I also believe in other somewhat different things.)

On the term, "Sanatana Dharma", you know that I agree it's the best term for Hinduism unless we are trying to simplify. We've both agreed on that on HP. 🙂 And the fact the "Hinduism" is a pretty recent word, only appearing in print less than 200 years ago, and furthermore is a European invention! - from the time Europeans were trying to see other faiths in terms of 'religions' and so calling them all "isms" ... Taoism, Confucianism, etc.

My point, somewhat from out of the blue I agree, is that I see the absolute and utter "Sanatana Dharma" as being like the sun symbol inside ancient Egyptian architecture, which then has seven or so "hands" reaching down toward the earth. In other words, there's a real Source, and from that come all religions and beliefs of any worth. So, I evidently rate 'Hinduism' highly, but it's just one of those extended 'hands' from the real Source. The others also contain more aspects of Sanatana Dharma. For example, there are hues and aspects of Jesus' teachings, and his life-example, which aren't by definition in Hinduism.

But beyond all that :):):) my point is also that what passes for Hinduism in any hue isn't the full Sanatana Dharma at all IMHO. No religion, practice, or set of beliefs can contain that Source. So when it continues in progressive revelation, it'll go beyond anything in Hinduism or elsewhere, IMO. That's how, historically, progressive revelation continues to work. We still only glimpse bits of truth, including from Hinduism.

There's a reason I make this point. 2-3 years back I had to study introductory-level Hinduism on an MA course, and every book on it written by a Hindu claimed that Hinduism is the source and core of all religions, more than just implying, but saying, that all other religion stems out from Hinduism. Ah-hem! I disagree, as Hinduism is pretty stuck like the rest of them now, and not forward-moving. That absolutely is not to knock it. It's natural for faiths to become somewhat rigid.

And that's why new wine will have to get poured into a new botle, the looks and sight and manner of which we can probably not yet fully imagine ... which is the whole point. The fulness of Sanatana Dharma is that revolutionary. No existing religion will accept it IMO, and this has been the continuing pattern in all of human history.

The only real alternative PoV is to believe "We have almost all Truth that humanity is ever going to know, spiritually, and it's contained in the books I personally believe are the best." That just isn't the way I tend to think. 😮

V

1. There's a reason I make this point. 2-3 years back I had to study introductory-level Hinduism on an MA course, and every book on it written by a Hindu claimed that Hinduism is the source and core of all religions, more than just implying, but saying, that all other religion stems out from Hinduism. Ah-hem! I disagree,

2. as Hinduism is pretty stuck like the rest of them now, and not forward-moving.

3. And that's why new wine will have to get poured into a new botle, the looks and sight and manner of which we can probably not yet fully imagine ... which is the whole point. AThe fulness of Sanatana Dharma is that revolutionary. No existing religion will accept it IMO, and this has been the continuing pattern in all of human history.

4. The only real alternative PoV is to believe "We have almost all Truth that humanity is ever going to know, spiritually, and it's contained in the books I personally believe are the best." That just isn't the way I tend to think. 😮

V

Hi V,

I am very tempted to write - whatever you say!

And leave it at that.

What you have written is no surprise to me. As yet, I have met only a handful of people who have been mentally prepared to accept and understand the full depth of Sanatana Dharma, usually but incorrectly called Hinduism. None of them have been from the West!

Christopher Isherwood and Juan Mascaro might have been the exceptions, as might have been Isaac Asimov. Sadly, I never got to meet them.

It is impossible for me to discuss in depth what you have written. I just have not enough time.

You will have to make the effort yourself. Please do not misunderstand me. I admire you for what you have already achieved. But your last post sadly confirms my earlier belief. I do not think you will truly appreciate or understand Sanatana Dharma in this lifetime.

Having said that, I shall try to respond to your points:

1. You are right to disagree. I think you simply did not read enough range of books. There are many Hindus who will not say that.

2. Wrong perception. Sanatana Dharma (what you call Hinduism) is inherently forward looking and progressive. There is plenty of evidence for that. But if you choose to ignore them, then that is your privilege.

3. I had picked the particular passage from the Gita to answer this very point. You seem to have ignored it. Please read it again Gita 4:7-8.

Sanatana Dharma (which you insist to call Hinduism) has never said there is a last prophet, seer or whatever! Quite the contrary!

Sanatana Dharma has always explicitly recognised the need to evolve and has indeed evolved. There is plenty of evidence for that. But if you choose to ignore them, then that is your privilege.

4. I have never adopted that pov. Nor have most Hindus. Quite the contrary!

Most Hindus that I know believe that there are many alternative routes to the Infinite. Exactly as Ramakrishna Paramahansa stated!

Regards.

Prashna

Hi Prashna,

Without thinking too far ahead I really started what maybe should be a new thread here. Apologies about that. Anyway:

What you have written is no surprise to me. As yet, I have met only a handful of people who have been mentally prepared to accept and understand the full depth of Sanatana Dharma, usually but incorrectly called Hinduism. None of them have been from the West!

This could be taken in different ways. One response would be that the 'East' has religions less practical, as a sweeping statement of course, which is why there has until recently been much less material development and such poverty remains in the 'East'. On the other hand, material success in the West is in some respects cultural, not religious (or both mixed in!).

I admire you for what you have already achieved. But your last post sadly confirms my earlier belief. I do not think you will truly appreciate or understand Sanatana Dharma in this lifetime.

Should you still be around then, reincarnated, as I sadly can't achieve this in my present lifetime, they'll be another one hopes. 🙂 Actually, Prashna, I'm being slightly ironic there, sorry! 🙂

2. Wrong perception. Sanatana Dharma (what you call Hinduism)

You know I don't get the two terms mixed up.

We virtually co-wrote a thread on the fact that Hinduism is a "simple way" of referring to Sanatana Dharma. We agreed throughout. (I simply didn't say that I believe it goes beyond 'Hinduism'.) The very forum is called Hinduism, and most find it simpler to use that word.

Sanatana Dharma (which you insist to call Hinduism) has never said there is a last prophet, seer or whatever! Quite the contrary!

I really do appreciate this. And new teachers come forth wihin Hinduism (or "SD"!) all the time.

I can't perhaps find words to put across what I mean. How much do the major religions of today differ from the most very, very primitive ones? And keep in mind scientific paradigm changes in which an entire theory or way of looking at Reality, such as in physics, has to be left behind in order to embrace something utterly new. My concept of - let's call it "extremely revolutionary progressive revelation" - is that the prevailing religious structures just won't be flexible enough to embrace it.

That will have to simply remain a point of view. It can't be proven or disproven. It's not a question of a religion "evolving" - it's about a revolution coming quite suddenly, and so different to anything before, that nothing existing now can "evolve" to embrace it.

Again, it'll have to remain as a PoV until it comes along! However, there are minor examples; not as major as what I have in mind. A lot of spiritual renewal has taken place in the West over recent decades, such as in the highest and purest aspects of what we might call the New Age. This is very largely not even touched upon or known about by Hinduism, as if it had never occurred.

V

Hi Prashna,
....
1. We virtually co-wrote a thread on the fact that Hinduism is a "simple way" of referring to Sanatana Dharma. We agreed throughout. (I simply didn't say that I believe it goes beyond 'Hinduism'.) The very forum is called Hinduism, and most find it simpler to use that word.

2. This is very largely not even touched upon or known about by Hinduism, as if it had never occurred.

V

Thank you V, for your post.

1. It's that one point of difference that I find critical. As far as I am concerned, tthe term "Hinduism" is a misnomer, a term deliberately created by foreign invaders who neither knew nor wished to know about our belief system. All they wished to do was to denigrate it!

I have no intention of doing their work for them!

I have no problem with the term "Hinduism" provided it is clearly understood that it is only a convenient nick name for the far more accurate term "Sanatana Dharma" and nothing more.

You seem to believe that Hinduism falls far short of "Sanatana Dharma". To me the two terms are synonymous, except that the term "Hinduism" is unacceptable in itself.

2. I cannot agree! "Hinduism" is not a person, it is an idea. Hindus are persons. They certainly are aware.

Regards.

Prashna

It's a semantic problem, isn't it. On the other hand I'm afraid I do see large elements (as found in other religions of course) of "mine is best", not personally toward Prashna but as the term comes to be used.

"Hinduism" may be quite rightly a misnomer or invented word, but many of us have a rough idea of what we mean by it. And the fact is that if we simply say, "Hinduism isn't the correct word, it's really 'Sanatana Dharma' or "Eternal Law" it seems to me that it's still "Hindus" (in quotes!) who are saying this. Which in books I come across boils down to meaning "Sanatana Dharma, known by some by the nick-name 'Hinduism', is the true Eternal Law".

My point here is that followers of what they call 'Sanatana Dharma' rarely actually are practitioners of Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the New Age, and would reject a completely revolutionary new entrance of spirituality or a 'new religion' whenever it appears.

So there are two distinct and different meanings used for 'Sanatana Dharma': one equates, frankly, with what the world calls Hinduism (and let's face it, we know roughly what we mean by that); another meaning of true Eternal Truth would see the Hindu aspect of it as just that - an important aspect but only an aspect of Truth. In a non-scientific fire-side chat we might speculate that any real 'Eternal Truth' is so vast that humanity has hardly glimpsed it yet, so that what is called Sanatana Dharma along with peoples' concepts of that term is only 1 or 2 percent of it.

And I'd still say that if we suddenly received a whacking great ten percent by a new divine revelation, almost no-one in any existing religion would embrace it: the real Sanatana Dharma would be just too great and new - it would in fact appear to conflict with much within mainstream religions today including Hinduism.

V

1. "Hinduism" may be quite rightly a misnomer or invented word, but many of us have a rough idea of what we mean by it.

2. And the fact is that if we simply say, "Hinduism isn't the correct word, it's really 'Sanatana Dharma' or "Eternal Law" it seems to me that it's still "Hindus" (in quotes!) who are saying this.

3. My point here is that followers of what they call 'Sanatana Dharma' rarely actually are practitioners of Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the New Age,

4. what is called Sanatana Dharma along with peoples' concepts of that term is only 1 or 2 percent of it.

5. the real Sanatana Dharma would be just too great and new - it would in fact appear to conflict with much within mainstream religions today including Hinduism.

V

Hi V,

Thank you for an interesting post, worth exploring further.

1. Could you please state what is your rough idea of what you mean by "Hinduism"?

2. Well, what's wrong with that? The term "Sanatana Dharma" was coined by Hindus to describe their own belief system. I would have thought that just as parents have every right to name their child, Hindus have every right to name their belief system "Sanatana Dharma" if they so choose!

3. OK, take this particular follower of Sanatana Dharma. I certainly do not accept that I am a follower of Islam! Same for Christianity or Buddhism and I suspect, Taoism, about which I know little. I don't know about New Age at all.

So why are you dumping me with followers of those belief systems?

4. I think the actual percentage may be less than 1-2% by several orders of magnitude!

5. There we must agree to differ.

Since I believe that Sanatana Dharma is the correct term for what is assumed by many to be "Hinduism", there is no conflict actual or potential, IMO.

Perhaps, some works by Swami Vivekananda might be of interest.

- Advaita Vedanta: Scientific Religion
- Is Vedanta the future religion
- Science and philosophy of religion
- Hinduism
- Practical Vedanta.

Perhaps the term "Vedantism" as used by Viv might appeal to you?

I would also cite some on-line works of Viv:

Practical Vedanta here:

Parts 2, 3 and 4 are also there.

Regards.

Prashna

Well, what's wrong with that? The term "Sanatana Dharma" was coined by Hindus to describe their own belief system. I would have thought that just as parents have every right to name their child, Hindus have every right to name their belief system "Sanatana Dharma" if they so choose!

3. OK, take this particular follower of Sanatana Dharma. I certainly do not accept that I am a follower of Islam! Same for Christianity or Buddhism and I suspect, Taoism, about which I know little. I don't know about New Age at all.

So why are you dumping me with followers of those belief systems?

This aptly makes one of my points. The "My religion is the true one and only" - not something I hear from you, Prashna, but which is general in the field of religion - is echoed above. If "Sanatana Dharma" is the Eternal Truth, and other religions are not "it" ............. what more need I say?

It's precisely what I've gotten from - I will use the word as it's more common - 'Hindu' authors: basically, as I've posted above, "We are the only true spiritual belief system; or all others stem from us." Of course, religions all say that and I disagree in each instance.

I think the actual percentage may be less than 1-2% by several orders of magnitude!

We really just cannot know, can we, and I was clearly just giving a "for instance". Hard to put percentages on Truth!

5. There we must agree to differ.

(That's in response to my: "the real Sanatana Dharma would be just too great and new - it would in fact appear to conflict with much within mainstream religions today including Hinduism.")

So again, it cannot be proven, but I feel it makes my point. You feel that any revolutionary new spiritual leap - such as the world has often experienced, and such as we find in scientific paradigm shifts, would be embraced by yourself and your belief system? If it's different enough, I disagee, as existing belief-systems, such as yours, wouldn't even recognise it as being legitimate.

Perhaps, some works by Swami Vivekananda might be of interest.

- Advaita Vedanta: Scientific Religion
- Is Vedanta the future religion [my emphasis - V]

IMHO Vedanta had a very great deal to offer to the West at the time of Vivekananda. So in a sense it was a portion of "future religion" then, a whole century ago. Scholars of religion are more-or-less unanimous that the present New Age in the West grew out of roughly 50% the introduction of Vedanta into the West, and 50% from Theosophy.

But no, I don't think Vedanta is a future religion now. It's not my definition of "future". My definition of a "future religion" is something truly new and truly in the .... future. As we don't have it yet.

Have you taken my point that in the realm of spirituality there occur huge leaps of progressive revelation, and that therefore more shall come? Things you've never imagined, nor I?

They may appear in the USA. They may appear in Iceland!! They may use terminology you've never and I've never heard of before. They may not associate themselves with any spiritual thread that's come out of India. So, though they be legitimate, they'll be rejected by many Indians.

Do you believe that spiritual revelation is finished, and that we now have it all? I doubt that you do. And I hope we haven't got it all yet too. One would hope that there's more to come, as all nations and their peoples are still in such a mess. (I was recently in the city - in India - where child sex slavery is a larger industry I suppose than anywhere else on earth. What's Sanatana Dharma doing to alleviate that?)

V

This aptly makes one of my points. The "My religion is the true one and only" - not something I hear from you, Prashna, but which is general in the field of religion - is echoed above. If "Sanatana Dharma" is the Eternal Truth, and other religions are not "it" ............. what more need I say?

It's precisely what I've gotten from - I will use the word as it's more common - 'Hindu' authors: basically, as I've posted above, "We are the only true spiritual belief system; or all others stem from us." Of course, religions all say that and I disagree in each instance.

We really just cannot know, can we, and I was clearly just giving a "for instance". Hard to put percentages on Truth!

(That's in response to my: "the real Sanatana Dharma would be just too great and new - it would in fact appear to conflict with much within mainstream religions today including Hinduism.")

So again, it cannot be proven, but I feel it makes my point. You feel that any revolutionary new spiritual leap - such as the world has often experienced, and such as we find in scientific paradigm shifts, would be embraced by yourself and your belief system? If it's different enough, I disagee, as existing belief-systems, such as yours, wouldn't even recognise it as being legitimate.

IMHO Vedanta had a very great deal to offer to the West at the time of Vivekananda. So in a sense it was a portion of "future religion" then, a whole century ago. Scholars of religion are more-or-less unanimous that the present New Age in the West grew out of roughly 50% the introduction of Vedanta into the West, and 50% from Theosophy.

But no, I don't think Vedanta is a future religion now. It's not my definition of "future". My definition of a "future religion" is something truly new and truly in the .... future. As we don't have it yet.

Have you taken my point that in the realm of spirituality there occur huge leaps of progressive revelation, and that therefore more shall come? Things you've never imagined, nor I?

They may appear in the USA. They may appear in Iceland!! They may use terminology you've never and I've never heard of before. They may not associate themselves with any spiritual thread that's come out of India. So, though they be legitimate, they'll be rejected by many Indians.

Do you believe that spiritual revelation is finished, and that we now have it all? I doubt that you do. And I hope we haven't got it all yet too. One would hope that there's more to come, as all nations and their peoples are still in such a mess. (I was recently in the city - in India - where child sex slavery is a larger industry I suppose than anywhere else on earth. What's Sanatana Dharma doing to alleviate that?)

V

Hi V,

I think I shall have to end this particular exchange with the usual "I guess we will have to agree to differ".

But before I do, one or two points need to be made.

Sanatana Dharma cannot be translated as eternal truth. I have given you the best I can do before and I shall repeat

Sanatana = Eternal, in the sense of the literal translation "with time"
but better to say "self-renewing".

Dharma = No English translation can do that word justice. No single English word exists, to my knowledge. It certainly is NOT Truth, or Law or Religion.

The best I can do is yet again to draw your attention to the origin of that word in Sanskrit.

The verb root "Dhri" means "to hold"

Dharma is the noun which literally means "something that is holding/cradling you"

I translate it as meaning "something that is held as precious"

Strangely enough the two are the same in Sanatana Dharma sincce there is no distinction between the creator and the created in Advaita.

I shall conclude with what you finished: the issue of child abuse in India.

So what?

What has child abuse got to do with Sanatana Dharma or anything else?

Can you cite one, just one sloka from any of the 3 canons of Sanatana Dharma that recommends or justifies child abuse?

If not, then please stop confusing the two issues!

Child abuse is a social and legal problem. India IS doing what it can. Why do you think that India can succeed overnight in doing what the richest nations on Earth have failed to do as yet?

Is there no child abuse or human trafficking in Britain? Why do the British let that continue?

Is there no child abuse or human trafficking in the USA? Why do the Americans let that continue?

Is there no genocide going on right now in Darfur? Why does the UN let that continue?

The truth is that so long as human beings exist evils like that will exist too. You will just have to get used to it!

Or indeed you could start a campaign to help eradicate it. Now, that would be a worthwhile venture.

Regards.

Prashna

I really didn't realise the Sanatana Dharma side-issue I began would get so long, so sorry for side-tracking the thread. I hope all will feel free to get back to deities worshipped!

But I'll reply to this one thing:

I shall conclude with what you finished: the issue of child abuse in India.

So what?

What has child abuse got to do with Sanatana Dharma or anything else?

Can you cite one, just one sloka from any of the 3 canons of Sanatana Dharma that recommends or justifies child abuse?

If not, then please stop confusing the two issues!

Child abuse is a social and legal problem.

The social and legal environment of any nation is shaped by its religion / spiritual belief-system / level of spirituality. Therefore, that this huge issue exists in India reflects upon the spiritual belief system. Not that 'Hinduism' encourages such behaviour at all, but that it's come to be, in some respects, other-worldly. (Such as the typical image of saddhus wandering homeless and being of no use to other people, concentrating on themselves, or yogis meditating in a remote cave.) Yes, I know some ashrams and aspects of 'Hinduism' do practice social welfare.

But a culture - which includes its social and legal status - tends to be shaped by its religious understanding. To cite a couple of examples that spring to mind, it's widely recognised that the explosion of industrialisation in the West during the 19th century stemmed from its Protestant work-ethic (which isn't to say I support all Protestant beliefs). And right now we've seen what evangelical Christianity of a right-wing form has led to politically, in the invasion of Iraq, which was planned by fundamentalist Christians in the USA since 1991. (And we also see a warped view of Islam fighting back with suicide bombing, but that's still a 'religious belief' of some kind.)

Spiritual comprehension and practice is the foundation and underpinning of a nation's legal and social standing. The very Declartion of Independence of the USA is Christian (and Masonic) in nature, for example.

If India has the largest red-light districts in the world, which it does, and if it's the place where sold and kidnapped young children end up for such abuse, as it is, then this does reflect (alright, IMO ....) on the efficacy of its spiritual system. It reflects upon how effective what is called Sanatana Dharma actually is upon real lives and upon the real world. What else is spiritual belief ultimately meant to influence if not the world around us and the people in it?

V

1. If India has the largest red-light districts in the world, which it does,

2..then this does reflect (alright, IMO ....) on the efficacy of its spiritual system.

3. It reflects upon how effective what is called Sanatana Dharma actually is upon real lives and upon the real world. What else is spiritual belief ultimately meant to influence if not the world around us and the people in it?

V

Alright, V,

ultimately it comes down to this, as I thought it would.

We would have to agree to differ.

1. This statement must, I repeat, must be taken in the context of the fact that India has the second largest population in the world.

It should be obvious that a country with a population of over 1000M would have a larger red-light district than a country with a population of 60M (the UK). Also the difference in economic affluence of the countries cited need to be taken into account.

The facts are stark and simple.
I did not wish to state it but you leave me no choice.

India had been ruthlessly, I repeat, ruthlessly exploited by Muslim invaders for over a thousand years. And then by the British invaders for about 200 years. And those invaders came for a simple reason: to rob the wealth of India.

And they were very successful. I shall cite only three examples; no doubt you can find many more. should you so wish.

Just visit the Tower of London and see the Crown Jewels and the Strong Room holding the heavy golden dishes and plates. There you will find the Koh-i-noor, a Diamond originally 1000 Carats, inherited by Shah Jehan at 800 Carats. Later cut by a Venetian cutter to 108.9 Carats and mounted on the crown of The Queen Mother.

When Shah-Jehan had the Taj-Mahal constructed its walls had a precious or semi-precious stone mounted every 9-12 inches on average(as I remeber it, may not be absolutely accurate). No stones remain today. Someone must have taken them and it wasn't the Mughals or the Indians after Independence. Only the BRitish were there in the intervening period.

Just read the "Impeachment of Warren Hastings" by Edmund Burke. See for example:

and

An excerpt

"By the time Hastings’ administration ended in India, he had sent to England 2,18,000 pounds, ..."

That was in 1797. I am sure you are capable of converting £218,000 pounds in 1797 to X Pounds Sterling today. I wonder how did Hastings amass that X £ Sterling!

Hastings was not the only one. Just read the exploits of one Lord Clive! There has been many others.

Hence the relative poverty in India, which considerably reduces her ability to deal with such evils.

The disappointment is not that India is doing so little.

The wonder is that Independent India is doing and has done so much in its brief 60 years of freedom to address its many problems so successfully.

2. NO, it does not, IMO.

3. And indeed Sanatana Dharma has had that beneficial effect and still does. That's from my personal experience in India.

If you have not seen that in your travels in India, perhaps you have missed it for a number of understandable reasons. For example, you seem to have missed the many Missions and Charitable Institutions and the many dedicated individuals who serve the poor and the needy(inc. my own niece, a brilliant Doctor, who has worked in a village by choice for the last 15 years and her husband also a brilliant Doctor).

Regards.

Prashna

Hm. So India's problems are all somebody else's fault, and rooted in the past.

There's nothing the present police or government could do to stop child sex slavery in the present-day? Clearly that's quite untrue. The truth is that it's accepted by offialdom and allowed to continue. IMHO that still relates back to the spiritual system of belief shaping the legal and social structures. It would do India no economic or other harm at all to at least step in, officially, to the problem regarding children kidnapped from Bangladesh and Nepal. Come, come, that isn't happening because of anything in the 1700s.

Hm. So India's problems are all somebody else's fault, and rooted in the past.

There's nothing the present police or government could do to stop child sex slavery in the present-day? Clearly that's quite untrue. The truth is that it's accepted by offialdom and allowed to continue. IMHO that still relates back to the spiritual system of belief shaping the legal and social structures. It would do India no economic or other harm at all to at least step in, officially, to the problem regarding children kidnapped from Bangladesh and Nepal. Come, come, that isn't happening because of anything in the 1700s.

Whatever you say, V

Whatever you say.

You obviously believe that India is uniquely corrupt and there is no corruption in the UK or the USA or anywhere else in the world.

There is no child sex slavery in the UK at all. Or in the USA.

There is no corruption in Government in Britain, no bribery, and the recent case of corruption and fraud investigated by the SFO and stopped after intervention by certain person/s in High office in Britain just did not happen!

How wonderful!

Goodbye.

Prashna

You obviously believe that India is uniquely corrupt and there is no corruption in the UK or the USA or anywhere else in the world.

Hello Prashna

You know I have noticed that on many occasions you reply to a post which says something you disagree with or feel uncomfortable with by using the phrase 'you obviously believe/don't believe....' which IMO is just not right. I don't think you can jump to such unfair conclusions in this way. Venetian has demonstrated on many occasions that he feels passionately about the terrible problem of child prostitution in India. But that doesn't mean that he believes that India is uniquely corrupt and there is no corruption in the UK etc. These are your words and you are putting them in his mouth. You tend to do this quite a lot. You did it to Sharon (spinal music) when you were having a little falling out with her. (I forget what about.)
I wonder now what you are going to tell me that I 'obviously believe'.

Actually, I do believe that the two of you have hijacked Nishira's interesting thread. I believe that this nitpicking over words (does it really matter whether we call it Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism? Really?) is uncalled for. I believe that I know what Venetian is talking about and he is in no way attacking you or your beliefs, merely stating his own beliefs.

I'm not a mod, but I do think it's time to get back on topic. Let's lighten up a bit, friends. Please.

With love
Sunanda xxx

I'm not a mod, but I do think it's time to get back on topic. Let's lighten up a bit, friends.

Yes. It's entirely my fault that the thread got right off the subject of deities. (Prashna didn't begin it, just replied.) Real apologies about that. I like as many of us do the ability to have asides or little comments on other things, but should have seen that I was opening a whole different topic that wouldn't end in a post or two. Then once it got going, it seemed to already be too much 'here' on this thread to switch.

Deities! Deities! I'm sure they haven't all fled or got plain fed up? 😉

V