Vedas reveal secrets of the universe (video)

Swami Mukundananda; Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation), Dhr. Seven (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly

Vedas reveal secrets of the universe | End of the Kali Yuga | Are we alone?

(Swami Mukundananda) Premiered March 18, 2022. Want to hear soul-stirring bhajans by Swami-ji? Subscribe to JKYog Music Channel. Join Swami Mukundananda's mailing list.

In the USA text JKYOG to 22828 to get started and to benefit from free online courses conducted by JKYog, based on the divine philosophy of Jagadguru Shri Kripalu-ji Maharaj and Swami Mukundananda’s books: jkyog.org/online_events.

• Register for Daily Sadhana Program: mydailysadhana.org
• Swami Mukundananda’s literature: jkyog.org/store

Attend Swamiji’s yoga, meditation, and inspiring lectures if so moved as he travels from city to city (free registration and details): JKYog.org/events

• Website: jkyog.org
• swamimukundananda.org
• Facebook, Twitter, Instagram

#SwamiMukundananda #JagadguruKripalujiMaharaj #JKYog

Who's a Hindu? The Buddha? Wendy Doniger?

Subhamoy Das (Thoughtco.com, Feb. 24, 2017); Dhr. Seven, CC Liu (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

What's Wrong with Doniger’s Controversial Book The Hindus?

American Professor Wendy Doniger's controversial book The Hindus: An Alternative History has outraged Hindus around the world, insulting Indians and offending Hindus.

Doniger, 73, is a Jewish American Indologist and has been a professor at the University of Chicago since 1978.

Although she is a well-known authority on Hinduism, her book has had many factual errors pointed out. And her perspective of many things Indian, Vedic, and Hindu have been questioned time and again.

Hey, Wendy, I'm a Hindu! - Actor Julia Roberts

Published in 2009, The Hindus became the #1 bestseller in the non-fiction category in India despite [or more likely because of] a furor of criticism and protest from the American Hindu community.

In 2010, Mr. Aseem Shukla of the Hindu American Foundation debated various elements of the book with Doniger herself on his blog.

Historian Vishal Agarwal attacked Prof. Doniger's research chapter by chapter and pointed out numerous errors. In 2011, a New Delhi-based group, Shiksha Bachao Andolan, filed a civil lawsuit against Penguin, Donger's Indian publisher, and two other criminal complaints were lodged against the book.

 

Finally, on February 4th, Penguin decided to stop publishing it and agreed to pulp all remaining copies of the book officially stating that... More

Who is a Hindu?
Subhamoy Das  (Thoughtco.com, April 26, 2015)

Seven Features of Hinduism Recognized by Indian Courts
The Supreme Court of India defined the features of a Hindu in its 1995 ruling of the case “Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal.”

In one part, it states that the court identifies the following seven defining characteristics of Hinduism and by extension of a Hindu:

1. Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters... More

Not the Buddha

Buddha Gautama, Shakyamuni (Gandhara)

Well, right there, the Buddha would not qualify. For the Buddha was not a Hindu, nor were the Shakyians/Scythians his family clan.

But his father, King Suddhodana, may certainly have employed Brahmin advisors, counselors, chaplain, ministers, and astrologers. Any and every king of the day might have. First of all there was no such thing as "Hinduism" at that time.

Hinduism only came into being a few centuries ago with Sri Shankara, who systematized it into a formal "religion" or doctrine with universal tenets cobbling together many disparate traditions in India.

Shankara regarded the Buddha as foreigner whose Dharma was an outside influence on India, not something born in it. He was right. It came from the Northwest frontier where Brahmins were not the highest cast.

That place, Scythia or Saka Land, had its own ways. There was no actual "India" at that time either, although there may have been in the distant past pre-or-post Indus Valley Civilization if any emperor before the Buddhist Asoka had brought together warring kingdoms to make Mahabharata, "Great Bharat," a name used for what is today more or less thought of as "India."

There was at that time Brahmanism (the Vedic belief-system of the Brahmin priestly caste, which regarded Brahman as the "ultimate"), and the Buddha was not a Brahmin adhering or promoting the Vedas.

And although beautiful modern Hinduism may co-opt "Lord Buddha" as a god in the pantheon -- which is very nice as it facilitates good relations between the two great Dharmic traditions -- the Buddha himself in his lifetime rejected the Vedas.

What Brahmanism thought of as ideal, "temple priests" (brahmana) tied to texts, rote memorization, mantras, and tradition, the Buddha rejected. In its place he promoted the "wandering ascetic (shramana) ideal. And Buddhism and Jainism, both accepted by Hinduism today, are actually the two remaining examples of that protest movement.

• The shramaṇa movements arose in the same circles of mendicants in ancient "India" [which was not yet "India" but a bunch of kingdoms and territories with uneasy and changing alliances who in no way thought of themselves as one country until and when one king or group conquered another] that led to the development of yogic practices, as well as the popular concepts common to all major Indian religions such as saṃsāra (the problem of the endless Cycle of Birth and Death) and moksha (final liberation from that cycle). More

And the Buddha stated unequivocably that he was not a god (deva), not an incarnation (avatar), and that he did not adhere to the central tenets of the Vedas, like things stated about the soul/self (atman) -- teaching the radical, unheard of "doctrine of no-self" (anatta) unique to buddhas.

• Buddhism
• Catholicism
• Christianity
• Hinduism
• Islam
• Judaism
• Latter-Day Saints
• Taoism
• Religion & Spirituality

Why we argue (Parable of the Blind Men)

John D. Ireland (translator), Wisdom Quarterly edit, Inspired Utterances (Ud. 6.4)

Buddhist novice meditating above the tangled canopy (Mattravel/Flickr.com)

Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at the multi-millionaire's monastery.

At that time there were a number of recluses and brahmins, wanderers of various sects, living around Savatthi. They were of various views, of various beliefs, of various opinions. And they relied for their support [by reasoning] based on their various views.

• There were some recluses and brahmins who asserted and held this view: "The world is eternal; only this is true, any other (view) is false."
• There were some recluses and brahmins who asserted: "The world is not eternal; only this is true, any other (view) is false."
• There were some who asserted: "The world is finite...
• The world is infinite...
• The life-principle and the body are the same...
• The life-principle and the body are different...
• The Tathagata [person who has attained liberation from samsara, such as the Buddha] exists beyond death [of the body]...
• The Tathagata does not exist beyond death...
• The Tathagata both exists and does not exist beyond death...
• The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist beyond death; only this is true, any other (view) is false."

And they lived quarrelsome, disputing, and wrangling, wounding one another with verbal darts, saying:

• "Dharma [liberating truth] is like this
• Dharma is not like that!
• Dharma is not like this
• Dharma is like that!"

Then a number of Buddhist monastics, having put on their robes in the forenoon and taken their bowls and outer cloaks, entered Savatthi for almsfood. Having walked in Savatthi for almsfood and returned after the meal, they approached the Buddha, prostrated themselves, sat down to one side, and said:

"At present, venerable sir, there are a number of recluses and brahmins, wanderers of various sects, living around Savatthi. They are of various views... saying: 'Dharma is like this!... Dharma is like that!'"

[The Buddha replied:] "The wanderers of other sects, disciples, are blind, not seeing. They do not know what is [karmically] beneficial [in terms of practice now and future results from profitable and unprofitable actions willed, performed, and accumulated]; they do not know what is harmful. They do not know what is Dharma; they do not know what is non-Dharma.

"Not knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dharma and what is non-Dharma, they are quarrelsome... saying: 'Dharma is like this!... Dharma is like that!'

"Formerly, disciples, there was a certain king in this very city of Savatthi. And that king addressed a man: 'Come now, my good man, bring together all those persons in Savatthi who have been blind from birth.'

"'Yes, your majesty,' that man replied, and after detaining all the blind people in Savatthi, he approached the king and said, 'All the blind people in Savatthi have been brought together, your majesty.'

"'Now, my good man, show the blind people an elephant.'

"'Very well, your majesty,' the man replied to the king, and he presented an elephant to the blind people, saying, 'This, blind people, is an elephant.'

The blind men examine an elephant (jainworld.com)

"To some of the blind people he presented the head of the elephant, saying, 'This is an elephant.' To some he presented an ear of the elephant, saying, 'This is an elephant.' To some he presented a tusk... the trunk... the body... the foot... the hindquarters... the tail... the tuft at the end of the tail, saying, 'This is an elephant.'

"Then, disciples, the man, having shown the elephant to the blind people, went to the king and said, 'The blind people have been shown the elephant, your majesty. Now do as you see fit.' Then the king approached those blind people and said, 'Have you been shown the elephant?'

"'Yes, your majesty, we have been shown the elephant.'

"'Tell me, blind people, what is an elephant like?'

"Those blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a water jar.'

"Those blind people who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied. 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.'

"Those blind people who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a ploughshare.'

"Those blind people who had been shown the trunk replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a plough pole.'

"Those blind people who had been shown the body replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a storeroom.'

"Those blind people who had been shown the foot replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a post.'

"Those blind people who had been shown the hindquarters replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.'

"Those blind people who had been shown the tail replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.'

"Those blind people who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.'

"Saying 'An elephant is like this, an elephant is not like that! An elephant is not like this, an elephant is like that!' they fought each other with their fists. And the king was delighted (with the spectacle).

"Even so, disciples, are those wanderers of various sects blind, not seeing... saying, "Dharma is like this!... Dharma is like that!'"

Then, on realizing the significance, the Buddha made this inspired utterance on this occasion:

Some recluses and brahmins, so called,
Are deeply attached to their own views;
People who only see one side of things
Engage in quarrels and disputes.

Source: ATI - For free distribution only, as a gift of Dharma (dhamma-dana).

Decoding Hinduism

Reviewed by Koenraad Elst, Belgium (DailyPioneer.com)

Universal Hinduism: an enlightening account by an ex-Christian David Frawley on Hinduism and its ethos, writes Koenraad Elst. (Image: Shiva's many symbols).

Most Hindus have no clear idea where their own religion fits in the global religious landscape. Even the most illiterate Christian or Muslim knows that his/her religion was brought into the world in order to supersede all other religions, which of course are "false."

But the Hindus’ grasp of their relation to other religions, even (and perhaps especially) among English-speaking literate people, is characterized by crass ignorance and sweet delusions.

In Universal Hinduism, American scholar and Hindu convert David Frawley sets out to clear up this confusion. He takes the reader through the basics that set Hinduism apart from the others, and specific Hindu schools from one another and from Buddhism.

He also discusses what it has in common with the world’s eliminated and surviving Pagan religions, and sometimes with forms of Islam and Christianity too. In his typical kindly style, he gives every practice and every belief its due. But he keeps his focus on the potential of the Sanatana Dharma [Eternal Truth] to heal modern society and lead mankind to enlightenment.

One of the most useful parts for Hindus will be Frawley’s discussion of the motivation and strategy behind the missionary penetration of Hindu society. On this, most Hindu nationalist discourse is shrill and ill-informed. It usually amounts to an anachronistic identification of Christianity with “White racism” (which was a passing phase in the Church’s long history).

Among other mistakes, this ignores the difference between Catholics and Protestants, with the latter marketing Christianity in India most aggressively. Such sloppiness contrasts sharply with the diligence and thoroughness of the Christian effort in mapping out the Hindu world, theologically as well as sociologically.

If Hindus want to develop a more realistic assessment of the missionary enterprise, Frawley’s chapter on it is a good place to start. He explains Christianity as a belief system and reveals its Pagan roots along with its anti-Pagan stance in terms that Hindus will understand.

Thus, Catholic and Orthodox icon worship is a thinly veiled continuation of Pagan murti-puja [idol adoration], with the Virgin Mary as the acceptable face of the Goddess.

Protestants had already pointed out that much of what endears the Virgin, the Saints, and their idols and pilgrimages to the common worshippers is plain Paganism. The co-optation of Pagan elements into folk Christianity, that is, of the Aztec mother goddess Tonantzin (whose temple in Mexico was forcibly replaced with a chapel) as the Virgen de Guadalupe, is being replayed in India today by the mainstream Churches under the label “acculturation.”

By contrast, Evangelical Protestants pursue a more confrontational strategy, labelling Hindu gods "devils" and making no compromise with “idol worship.” They are very straightforward about the essential exclusivism that contrasts Christianity and Islam with pluralistic Hinduism.

On the contention between Hindu nationalism and Hindu universalism, Frawley charts a middle course. Of course, Hinduism is tied to India... More>>

• Gurusfeet.com
• Hinduism struggles to exist
• Studying Hinduism in world literature
• Aztec-Catholic goddess (Guan Yin) Tonantzin

Rooted in "Hinduism"

Buddhism and the wider spiritual/social/religious context the Buddha emerged out of -- loosely spoken of today as "Hinduism" -- are best seen together. The Buddha was the most significant catalyst in the Hindu tradition. He reignited interest, probing, and understanding into many teachings that had grown stagnant and arcane.

For example, the understanding of karma, rebirth, the nature of heavenly worlds, and the most minute aspects of cognitive experience were revealed and explained by the Buddha. These explanations went largely to brahmin scholars. Nuns and monks were taught the practice so they themselves could see the truth directly.

Debaters and philosophers, announcing their own views or claiming none, sparked many interesting discourses on questions of cosmology, theology, and existential matters. Religious discourse was vibrant. Therefore, to understand Buddhism deeply one may either practice it or study it in its original context. Buddhism, Jainism, and no longer extant Eastern philosophical traditions provide that context. To understand another's tradition is to understand one's own much more deeply.