Surya,
“There was no first Yogi”
Whether it is plural or singular, that is irrelevant. There may have been many who had come to the discovery at a time. But it comes to the same - that yoga has it’s origins in direct experience, not the scriptures.
Nope, Yoga, if it has origins at all it is Jnana. First, man had to deduce that there was a Self distinct from their bodily self. Then they had work out methods to realise this self. One day the caveman did not say, “Oh, I am going to go sit and observe all my thoughts” This was the result of intellectual development.
Of course that is a theory only. I personally think Yoga was not discovered, but seeded. I think the first people on this Earth migrated to Earth billions of years ago, and bought Yoga along with them. At that time we were highly developed, but over time, we lost our development due to the ravages of time.
Yoga knowledge always presupposes somebody who is enlightened who passes down the knowledge.
No point discussing origins of Yoga, it is like asking the chicken and egg question. If we stick to records Yoga originates in the Vedic tradition in India 10,000 years ago. It begins as an intellectual tradition first, and then culminates in a spiritual tradition.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;53668]Dwai,
“if you claim knowledge of yoga, then you must know the vedic or at least vedantic teachings”
Do you think that the first yogis were following any particular belief system or philosophy ?
Nothing ever exists, complete and ready made. And the first yogis had no scriptures, not even masters, because when you are entering into any new territory, there is nobody there before you to guide you along the path. The search was entirely alone, absolutely alone, groping in the dark. And to come to know of yoga, nothing else is needed except to come to know yourself, through and through. Because yoga does not refer to any particular practice or discipline, it simply means Union. When you come to a state of consciousness in which you are in communion with your own original nature, thne you are in a state of yoga. All of the different techniques and methods are just different means towards this.[/QUOTE]
You posted a little while back that the Vedas were either hallucinations or a nefarious conspiracy to give credence to scripture sanctioned by an organized religious body.
First, because the Vedas claims to be a revelation from God himself, in the sense of a Supreme Being, which is either a method to try and give great credibility to the scripture or simply man’s hallucination. Man other religions have tried the same approach, Christians declare that the Bible is God’s one and only word, Muslims declare that the Quran is the only true word of God, Jews are as convinced as everybody else that the Torah is God’s one and only revelation, and all are suffering from the same basic delusion.
So by your understanding, the Rishis who composed the vedas were deluded megalomaniacs?!?
There are issues with this generalized understanding of the Vedas. So when it’s convenient, you accept it and when it’s inconvenient you call it primitive utterances by deluded fools? I don’t blame you for this, because the primary culprits for this perception are Western Academics who lack the grounding in the vedic tradition and culture to even interpret the Vedas appropriately…but that’s a different story altogether.
The Vedas never claim to be the only way…in fact, Ekam Sat Vipraha Bahuda Vadanti is a major and oft quoted proclamation from the Vedas (The Existent is One, the Sages call it by different Names).
Also, the Vedas were not the word of God, the Vedas describe Brahman. Especially when you get to the Upanishad part. The Vedas consist of 3 layers…the Brahmanas, The Aranyakas and the Upanishads. The First two deal with rituals and are representative of the Purva Mimamsa school of Indian Philosophy while the Upanishads are more esoteric and are representative of the Uttara Mimamsa school of Indian Philosophy.
Perhaps there may be some parts of the Vedas which are filled with penetrating insight. But if you look in other places, you can find things which reflect just the opposite. The Vedas is in support of animal sacrifice, and if such a thing can be said to be great wisdom, then the author of the work is in a deep sleep.
Ritualistic sacrifices are part of the Vedic texts and it is subject to interpretation by different masters. For Eg, Madhvacharya insisted that the sacrifices happen with animals made of flour and after a prana-pratistha was done to them (ie invoking prana into the flour animals). In any case, Animal sacrifice is not rampant in the Vedic narrative.
The greatest of all Yajnas, Aswamedha, meant for a world-conquering Ruler, required a sacrifice of a 100 horses (and the fact that horses were sacrificed is a literalistic interpretation, Sri Aurobindo interprets it in a different way in his “Secrets of The Veda”). The Vajapeya yajna, greatest possible by a brahmin required 23 cows to be sacrificed. The scope and extent of these events can be likened to celebrating 4th of July in America or Presidential Elections (perhaps with even lower frequency)…odds are that these sacrificed only occured once in hundreds of years (references are rare even in the texts such as Mahabharata or Ramayana which deals with some of the Greatest Kings, Dynasties and Brahmins in Indian History).
Regarding the sacrificial interpretation in the Vedas, this is just an interpretation. There is no evidence the Risis conducted any animal sacrifices.
The Vedic translations we read are rendered by Eurocentric Sanskrit scholars who latched onto the sacrificial interpretation, but use a method to translate the Vedas which is completely pseudoscientific. For example I saw the translation of a verse on the ashwamedha sacrifice when the queen has to feign the act of copulation with a horse. I then translated it myself with my knowledge of Sanskrit and Sanskrit grammar and it turned out to be something completely different.
Do not trust any of the translations done of Vedic texts by European Sanskrit scholars. They are not reliable or trustworthy sources. They had clear agendas and hatred towards Vedic culture, so how can you trust them to translate the sacred texts of another culture?
Add to that, decryption methods like Linguamaths.
What is Linguamaths?
Linguamaths is the name given to a rediscovery of the mathematical basis on which most of the ancient original languages, especially the Vaedhic and Thamizh languages, were designed. The essence of the Linguamaths theory is that the most ancient languages inter-connected numbers, phonetics, Laws of Mother Nature, notations and a set of rules for their combinations to design their alphabets, words, sentences, paragraphs, topics, chapters, etc. that make a language.
Vaedhas deal with what subjects?
Vaedhas deal with all the conceivable subjects and there can be no subjects dealt with in other works that are not found in Vaedhas.
Do Vaedhas contain science subjects?
Sure! As a matter of fact all the four Vaedhas, Upanishadhs and their allied Scriptures like Brahma Suuthrak, Sankhyakaarika, etc., are capable of presenting themselves as pure, unadulterated, unambiguous textbooks on various subjects of science and mathematics that can be used to teach students at all levels from elementary classes to doctorate level.
In Vaedhic period advanced science and technology was there?
Probably yes! It is proved by Vedsri that the landmark theorems of so-called modern science, say for example, those by Pythagoras, Arhimedes, Aristotle, Darwin, Dalton, Isaac Newton, Einstein, Neils Bohr, etc., are already found in Vaedhas in almost identical terms. Set theory, Group theory, integral and differential calculus, aerodynamics, accurate astronomical formulae for the calculations of planetary positions and movements, structural engineering, biology, anatomy, medicine, health and healing systems, and what not are in Vaedhic scriptures. When such advanced scientific theorems existed in Vaedhic period, it is quite unlikely that their applications did not exist. One may ask whether there is any proof for their existence. Not finding a proof is not a proof for its non-existence! The land of Vaedhic civilization sunk under the Indian Ocean waters south of Kanyakumai in South Indhiya during the great deluge several millenniums ago. Probably undersea excavation may unearth proofs for the existence of very advanced science and technology with their legendary Pushpaka Vimaan, (present day television-like) magic mirror, building equipments that could lift huge stones weighing several tons to great heights to erect sky-scrapper-like pyramids and South-Indhiyan tall ?gopurams?, reveal methods for non-rusting alloys like those used for Gutab-Minar, etc.
Why nobody could pin-point the specific Vaedhic lines containing specific theorems?
After the great deluge, only a small amount of great Vaedhic works survived and recovered by the present generation. Even now people could not guess the real language of Vaedhas. Everybody thought they were composed in Sanskrit language but they could not understand the real full meaning of even one Vaedhic line. The astonishing fact is Vaedhic language is not Sanskrit at all! It is a computer bit-friendly coded language that works like an assembler level language in computer systems based on binary algebra, ?yes, or no?.
When the code is known and the Vaedhic lines are decoded, all of them are capable of presenting themselves with a minimum of 3 mutually exclusive thought-flows. They are literary or superficial, scientific or qualitative, and mathematical or quantitative. Thus Vaedhas are 3-in-1 works – spiritual and ethical code works, science and mathematics textbooks at one and the same time.
For more information:
https://sites.google.com/site/vedsriasw/home/what-is-linguamaths
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53706]Regarding the sacrificial interpretation in the Vedas, this is just an interpretation. There is no evidence the Risis conducted any animal sacrifices.
The Vedic translations we read are rendered by Eurocentric Sanskrit scholars who latched onto the sacrificial interpretation, but use a method to translate the Vedas which is completely pseudoscientific. For example I saw the translation of a verse on the ashwamedha sacrifice when the queen has to feign the act of copulation with a horse. I then translated it myself with my knowledge of Sanskrit and Sanskrit grammar and it turned out to be something completely different.
Do not trust any of the translations done of Vedic texts by European Sanskrit scholars. They are not reliable or trustworthy sources. They had clear agendas and hatred towards Vedic culture, so how can you trust them to translate the sacred texts of another culture?[/QUOTE]
I feel translation of any ancient text written in a long quiet tounge is ripe with troubles - for anyone.
Well except for buddhas like amir.
After the great deluge, only a small amount of great Vaedhic works survived and recovered by the present generation. Even now people could not guess the real language of Vaedhas. Everybody thought they were composed in Sanskrit language but they could not understand the real full meaning of even one Vaedhic line. The astonishing fact is Vaedhic language is not Sanskrit at all! It is a computer bit-friendly coded language that works like an assembler level language in computer systems based on binary algebra, ‘yes, or no’.
Much of that article was acceptable, except for this part. It is very easy to destroy the credibility of your entire article by putting in spurious stuff like this. Of course the Vedas are in Sanskit. They are in a dialect known as Vedic Sanskrit, which is a dialect nobody now speaks and barely anybody understands. We are not completely in the dark though, thanks to Nirukta and vyakarana method we have been able to translate the Vedas more accurately, but still a lot has been left to be desired. You are talking about a language that is at least 10,000 years old, if not older, obviously a lot of knowledge about this language has been lost. Words and their meanings change over generations, so the word “go” for example which later meant cow, could have meant something different in Vedic times. Aurobindo points out that the word go has more than 15 different meanings.
Dwai,
“So by your understanding, the Rishis who composed the vedas were deluded megalomaniacs”
I do not know anything about those Rishis, because I have never met them. But how do you know that these Rishis knew ? You have accepted it for granted, that they know what they are talking about. Whether they do or do not, that is different. But you yourself do not know, and unless your own truth is verified, you are just clinging to what somebody else has said which may or may not be true.
Seeing the Vedas as it is, like any other text, it may be found to be filled with tremendous insight in fragments, and in other parts with tremendous delusion. And it seems that one has forgotten that there is a great difference between a tradition which reveres a man as being wise, and a man who has actually come to a certain wisdom. To be capable of even recognizing wisdom, you yourself must be wise - one cannot be dependent upon the authority of traditions or scriptures. Otherwise, depending on your own likes and dislikes, your own ideas of wisdom are going to be relative. For the Jews, Moses and the long line of prophets, all are great sages. I cannot agree with them, and those prophets who thought themselves to be messengers of the one and only God of Jerusalem, who happened to be one of the most violent entities that man has ever invented, were simply entangled in one’s own imagination.
One can only come to know oneself, through and through, there can be no substitute for Truth. In parts, the Vedas has great insight, on other parts, just the opposite. And the problem is that the moment you start clinging to borrowed knowledge, even if that borrowed knowledge is filled with great insight, it functions like a veil over one’s eyes which prevents you from seeing directly into the essential matter. And the more and more knowledgeable one becomes is not the clearer and clearer one’s perception - on the contrary, if one has sharpened one’s inner vision, one will come to know that one knows nothing, one is just as ignorant as the day that one has been born. Out of this - then there is a possibility to inquire in a fresh, clear, and receptive state. But because most of the scriptures are already trying to condition the mind into a certain pattern, that spontaneous freshness has been lost, one is no longer functioning out of one’s own intelligence. That is why, even though parts of the Vedas may have been written with the greatest intentions and out of a certain vision, it is irrelevant - it has created more barriers to enlightenment than it has dissolved. What is needed is not scriptures, beliefs, or philosophies - but a method to come to a transformation. A method does not require any belief system or philosophy - but a knowledge as to how to use one’s own system as a vehicle for the expansion of consciousness.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;53789]Dwai,
“So by your understanding, the Rishis who composed the vedas were deluded megalomaniacs”
I do not know anything about those Rishis, because I have never met them. But how do you know that these Rishis knew ? You have accepted it for granted, that they know what they are talking about. Whether they do or do not, that is different. But you yourself do not know, and unless your own truth is verified, you are just clinging to what somebody else has said which may or may not be true.
Seeing the Vedas as it is, like any other text, it may be found to be filled with tremendous insight in fragments, and in other parts with tremendous delusion. And it seems that one has forgotten that there is a great difference between a tradition which reveres a man as being wise, and a man who has actually come to a certain wisdom. To be capable of even recognizing wisdom, you yourself must be wise - one cannot be dependent upon the authority of traditions or scriptures. Otherwise, depending on your own likes and dislikes, your own ideas of wisdom are going to be relative. For the Jews, Moses and the long line of prophets, all are great sages. I cannot agree with them, and those prophets who thought themselves to be messengers of the one and only God of Jerusalem, who happened to be one of the most violent entities that man has ever invented, were simply entangled in one’s own imagination.
One can only come to know oneself, through and through, there can be no substitute for Truth. In parts, the Vedas has great insight, on other parts, just the opposite. And the problem is that the moment you start clinging to borrowed knowledge, even if that borrowed knowledge is filled with great insight, it functions like a veil over one’s eyes which prevents you from seeing directly into the essential matter. And the more and more knowledgeable one becomes is not the clearer and clearer one’s perception - on the contrary, if one has sharpened one’s inner vision, one will come to know that one knows nothing, one is just as ignorant as the day that one has been born. Out of this - then there is a possibility to inquire in a fresh, clear, and receptive state. But because most of the scriptures are already trying to condition the mind into a certain pattern, that spontaneous freshness has been lost, one is no longer functioning out of one’s own intelligence. That is why, even though parts of the Vedas may have been written with the greatest intentions and out of a certain vision, it is irrelevant - it has created more barriers to enlightenment than it has dissolved. What is needed is not scriptures, beliefs, or philosophies - but a method to come to a transformation. A method does not require any belief system or philosophy - but a knowledge as to how to use one’s own system as a vehicle for the expansion of consciousness.[/QUOTE]
You know you really need to stop talking. You’re not saying any of value and nor do you know what you are talking about. Have you even read the Vedas? Which Vedas? Which translation?
“You know you really need to stop talking.”
No.
"You’re not saying any of value and nor do you know what you are talking about. "
Then you have been hearing but not listening.
"Which Vedas? Which translation? "
All four, Ralph Griffith, Max Muller, and another translator whose name I have forgotten. Seeing into your psychological tendencies and the things you have said, it is my own understanding that you are far too entangled in the borrowed knowledge that has entered into your mind and not enough focused on doing the work that is needed to come to your liberation.
Then you have been hearing but not listening.
And you have obviously not been reading what we were just talking about above:
I said this above:
"The Vedic translations we read are rendered by Eurocentric Sanskrit scholars who latched onto the sacrificial interpretation, but use a method to translate the Vedas which is completely pseudoscientific. For example I saw the translation of a verse on the ashwamedha sacrifice when the queen has to feign the act of copulation with a horse. I then translated it myself with my knowledge of Sanskrit and Sanskrit grammar and it turned out to be something completely different.
Do not trust any of the translations done of Vedic texts by European Sanskrit scholars. They are not reliable or trustworthy sources. They had clear agendas and hatred towards Vedic culture, so how can you trust them to translate the sacred texts of another culture? "
"Which Vedas? Which translation? "
All four, Ralph Griffith, Max Muller,
Exactly, translations that I have warned against. I have read Muller and Griffith as well. So you have read not the Vedas, but translations of the Vedas by Eurocentric and colonial scholars whose agenda was to destroy Vedic culture.
Surya,
I have read other translators, though in fragments. But it is not the scriptures which I have any problem with - it is the tendency to cling to borrowed knowledge as a replacement for one’s own investigation, experience and inquiry. What has been called the Hindu scriptures is not something one-dimensional - it is a melting pot of various combinations of belief systems and philosophies. That is why to be a “Hindu” can have so many implications - in fact the word itself does not refer to any particular religion. It comes from the word Indu, which was used to refer to the people who had lived around the banks of the Indus river. At a later point of time, Indu became transformed into “Sindhu”, which had evolved into Hindu. “Hinduism” simply refers to a spectrum of different philosophies, religions, and belief systems that have grown out of this cultural diversity. You can be a theist and be a Hindu, an atheist and be a Hindu, you can worship a snake and be a Hindu, you can worhip a cow and be a Hindu, you can worship nothing and be a Hindu - it is a word which is as vast as one can conceive. And never before in the history of the whole humanity have so many human beings been as involved in the science of the expansion of consciousness as it has happened in India. Almost every possibility and approach that one can imagine, both through using inner and outer methods - it has all been exhausted.
But the problem is that Truth cannot be contained through any system at all - and the moment one makes an attempt to force into the boundaries of our language, it becomes distorted, it loses it’s original essence. Even a single thought standing as a barrier between yourself and the Truth is enough to project it dimensions apart. Because human beings are far more interested in clinging to something to give oneself a sense of comfort, security, protection in the universe - particularly when it has an ancient seal of approval, then coming to the Truth becomes almost impossible. And with all these different beliefs and philosophies not just in Hinduism but through the whole world - some which are completely opposite to one another, if you are relying upon outside knowledge - then to become entangled in delusion is inevitable. Perhaps different systems have all been looking at the same thing - but from different angles and perspectives, it is not that they do not have any truth in them. Other systems are less so, it is largely a projection of one’s imagination - but in both cases it is more or less the same - the Truth itself cannot be transmitted. What is needed is not a philosophy, or a belief, and if philosophy or beliefs are used - then if there is a certain stream of awareness, even they can be used just as a temporary skillful means, as methods rather than doctrines, as techniques rather than creeds.
Clinging to not just the scriptures, but borrowed knowledge in general, is one of the greatest hindrances for ones liberation. Patanjali has enormous insight when he has spoken of awakening a certain quality of clarity - he says that both attraction towards and aversion from are mental attitudes which are prejudiced. They cloud your perception just as mud becomes scattered in clear water.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;53847]Surya,
I have read other translators, though in fragments. But it is not the scriptures which I have any problem with - it is the tendency to cling to borrowed knowledge as a replacement for one’s own investigation, experience and inquiry. What has been called the Hindu scriptures is not something one-dimensional - it is a melting pot of various combinations of belief systems and philosophies. That is why to be a “Hindu” can have so many implications - in fact the word itself does not refer to any particular religion. It comes from the word Indu, which was used to refer to the people who had lived around the banks of the Indus river. At a later point of time, Indu became transformed into “Sindhu”, which had evolved into Hindu. “Hinduism” simply refers to a spectrum of different philosophies, religions, and belief systems that have grown out of this cultural diversity. You can be a theist and be a Hindu, an atheist and be a Hindu, you can worship a snake and be a Hindu, you can worhip a cow and be a Hindu, you can worship nothing and be a Hindu - it is a word which is as vast as one can conceive. And never before in the history of the whole humanity have so many human beings been as involved in the science of the expansion of consciousness as it has happened in India. Almost every possibility and approach that one can imagine, both through using inner and outer methods - it has all been exhausted. [/quote]
Actually Sindhu is the name given to the river known in English as the Indus. The word Hindu comes from the fact that Persians could not pronounce “S” and ended up those who lived across the river Sindhu as “Hindu”.
What is known as Hinduism today has certain guidelines. That is the upholding of prasthAna TryAyi – The Brahma Sutras, The Upanishads and The Bhagavad Gita. So, any sect can call itself a Hindu sect if holds the knowledge of these three as it’s basis.
But the problem is that Truth cannot be contained through any system at all - and the moment one makes an attempt to force into the boundaries of our language, it becomes distorted, it loses it’s original essence. Even a single thought standing as a barrier between yourself and the Truth is enough to project it dimensions apart. Because human beings are far more interested in clinging to something to give oneself a sense of comfort, security, protection in the universe - particularly when it has an ancient seal of approval, then coming to the Truth becomes almost impossible. And with all these different beliefs and philosophies not just in Hinduism but through the whole world - some which are completely opposite to one another, if you are relying upon outside knowledge - then to become entangled in delusion is inevitable. Perhaps different systems have all been looking at the same thing - but from different angles and perspectives, it is not that they do not have any truth in them. Other systems are less so, it is largely a projection of one’s imagination - but in both cases it is more or less the same - the Truth itself cannot be transmitted. What is needed is not a philosophy, or a belief, and if philosophy or beliefs are used - then if there is a certain stream of awareness, even they can be used just as a temporary skillful means, as methods rather than doctrines, as techniques rather than creeds.
This imho is more applicable to the abrahamic religions as opposed to the Dharma-based systems (such as Hinduism, buddhism, Taoism, etc). As far as I can tell, each of the Dharmic systems are far more complete and far more liberal in the quest for truth. Hinduism is unique even among the Dharmic traditions because it doesn’t really have a central body (in fact neither does Taoism) or “church-like organization”. The Dharma traditions focus on Individual emancipation the Abrahamic systems focus on the “communal”. A Hindu can be considered a serious Hindu even if he/she doesn’t set a foot inside a temple and simply focus on Karma Yoga.
Your name suggests that you carry the baggage of an abrahamic religion and as a result thereof, your imagination is stymied by the rules that were dictated to you/imposed onto you as a basis of your culture. You, or for that matter most Westerners or Abrahamics cannot even begin to fathom the depth and the simplicity of Sanatana Dharma.
Clinging to not just the scriptures, but borrowed knowledge in general, is one of the greatest hindrances for ones liberation. Patanjali has enormous insight when he has spoken of awakening a certain quality of clarity - he says that both attraction towards and aversion from are mental attitudes which are prejudiced. They cloud your perception just as mud becomes scattered in clear water.
You are right…however are you not showing attraction or aversion from something given your line of thinking?
Dwai,
“That is the upholding of prasthAna TryAyi – The Brahma Sutras, The Upanishads and The Bhagavad Gita. So, any sect can call itself a Hindu sect if holds the knowledge of these three as it’s basis.”
It is not something which is clear cut, because even if you see it in that light, these scriptures and their content can and have been interpreted in a variety of different ways. The nature of the mind is such, that everything can be seen from almost infinite number of angles and perspectives, all a finger pointing to the moon.
“Your name suggests that you carry the baggage of an abrahamic religion”
No, I do not follow any belief system, religion, or philosophy, including that of a no-belief system and no-philosophy. Truth is not something that can be understood through the boundaries of the mind, in any form.
“You, or for that matter most Westerners or Abrahamics cannot even begin to fathom the depth and the simplicity of Sanatana Dharma.”
Seeing what you have said, one is as far away from realizing it as possible. Otherwise, it would have been impossible to make such a statement that the “Dharma” is something that can be grasped.
“however are you not showing attraction or aversion from something given your line of thinking?”
It appears that way only because we have to use words to communicate, to try and make certain things beyond words more accessible. And to use words is one thing, and to cling to them is something else entirely.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;53847]Surya,
I have read other translators, though in fragments. But it is not the scriptures which I have any problem with[/quote]
Well, my objection was to the translations you have read. They are 19th century colonial translations by eurocentric translators serving the agenda of the empire.
Read Aurobindo, Dayananda, Sujoy Gosh, Vidyalankar for more accurate translations.
- it is the tendency to cling to borrowed knowledge as a replacement for one’s own investigation, experience and inquiry.
That is exactly what the Vedas teach. Here are a few verses:
Thy mind goes far away
To all that occured in the past
And will occur in the future
Call it back to thyself
So that it may remain
Under thy control(RV 10.58.12)
May my awareness be full of brilliance
And shine forth like the effulgent sun(RV 10.49.7)
O Seeker, know the true nature of thy soul
And identify yourself with it completely(YV 8.22)
In order to lead a blissful life, sharpen thy
intellect and enrich thy mind with brighter
vision.(SV.101)
Enrich yourself by the aquisition of wisdom
Then act and perform deeds of superb quality
In the spirit of dediciation(SV.189)
The knower of reality is he who knows the invisible
thread running inside the visible thread(AV 10.8.7)
In other words the Vedas are not asking you to cling onto some beliefs, but enjoining the human to seek their own knowledge by brightening their intellect, attaining knowledge and wisdom and seeing deeper into the nature of reality. These teachings are peculiar to the dharmic scriptures.
What has been called the Hindu scriptures is not something one-dimensional - it is a melting pot of various combinations of belief systems and philosophies. That is why to be a “Hindu” can have so many implications - in fact the word itself does not refer to any particular religion. It comes from the word Indu, which was used to refer to the people who had lived around the banks of the Indus river. At a later point of time, Indu became transformed into “Sindhu”, which had evolved into Hindu. “Hinduism” simply refers to a spectrum of different philosophies, religions, and belief systems that have grown out of this cultural diversity. You can be a theist and be a Hindu, an atheist and be a Hindu, you can worship a snake and be a Hindu, you can worhip a cow and be a Hindu, you can worship nothing and be a Hindu - it is a word which is as vast as one can conceive. And never before in the history of the whole humanity have so many human beings been as involved in the science of the expansion of consciousness as it has happened in India. Almost every possibility and approach that one can imagine, both through using inner and outer methods - it has all been exhausted.
Your information is wrong. The word “Hindu” comes from the Sanskrit “Sindu” which is one of the rivers that is flowing in India. The Persian pronounced word “Sindu” as “Hindu”. The Greeks pronounced it as “Indu” It originally was a term to describe the people of India. Hinduism was a term by the British to classify the domiant religion of India. They recognised that although there was so many different traditions like Vaishnavism, Shivaism, Shaktism and Smartism, they all belonged to the same religion: the Vedic religion. They all recognised the Vedas as their supreme scripture and source. Indeed, if we trace the history of Hinduism, it goes back to the Vedas.
So Hinduism ain’t no hodge podge of various religions and philosophies - it is the Vedic religion and has a Vedic philosophy. There are common tenets of Vedic religion which I have explained many times on Yoga forums before. There is also a thread on Hinduism in the religion forum. The common doctrines are
-
Brahman: The existence of an ultimate reality, absolute, one, pure consciousness beyond all duality
-
Atman: The existence of an ultimate inner self that connects us to the ultimate reality of Brahman
-
Dharma: The existence of powers or laws which govern nature and the necessity to live in harmony with those laws.
-
Karma samsara: The law of cause and effect/action and reaction and Rebirth.
-
Samkhya: The existence of various planes of reality and the analyical knowledge of spirit and matter(also includes yugas, tattb
-
Yoga: The practice of connecting Atman with Brahman
-
Guru-disciple: The tradition of knowledge being transmitted from guru to their disciple
This is common in every sect in Hinduism.
Clinging to not just the scriptures, but borrowed knowledge in general, is one of the greatest hindrances for ones liberation. Patanjali has enormous insight when he has spoken of awakening a certain quality of clarity - he says that both attraction towards and aversion from are mental attitudes which are prejudiced. They cloud your perception just as mud becomes scattered in clear water.
The Vedas are not something you can cling go. They are books of wisdom, wisdom which has to be directly realised and lived. Simply reading the Vedas will give you nothing. Even the Vedic tradition itself says the Vedas are useless without applying their lessons in your life.
By the way, for somebody who is preaching about not clinging to knowledge, you surely do cling to a lot of knowledge. Like the theory of relativity, physical laws of time and space, time and space.
This imho is more applicable to the abrahamic religions as opposed to the Dharma-based systems (such as Hinduism, buddhism, Taoism, etc).
Taoism is not considered a dharmic religion. It is considered Taoic. However, it is highly likely, that Taoic religion has had an influence from dharmic religions in the past.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53885]Taoism is not considered a dharmic religion. It is considered Taoic. However, it is highly likely, that Taoic religion has had an influence from dharmic religions in the past.[/QUOTE]
Actually both chinese and zen buddhism and taoism cross pollinated…i am a practicing taoist vedantin…
so i am well aware of the overlaps.
Tao is called the source/ mother by lao tzu and dharma etymology means upholding the source…so if you ask me taoism is dharma
[QUOTE=Dwai;53898]Actually both chinese and zen buddhism and taoism cross pollinated…i am a practicing taoist vedantin… so i am well aware of the overlaps.
Tao is called the source/ mother by lao tzu and dharma etymology means upholding the source…so if you ask me taoism is dharma[/QUOTE]
Actually Taoism is indigenous to China
Buddhism arrived in China from India
Taoism and Buddhism influenced each other
You then get Chan Buddhism which went to Japan and became Zen Buddhism
There were also changes in Taoism from Buddhism but still the root of Taoism did not change much and there is not a whole lot of Dharma in Taoism if any Dharma in Taoism
Taoism isn’t a dharmic religion. We have to be accurate here. However, Taoism is dharmically compatible. It is likely Taoism was influenced by Hinduism, even before Buddhism came into China. This is because texts like the Mahabharata mention the Chinese and the contact that went on between them, and of course the thematic similarities between Taoism and Hindism: 5 elements, vaastu, student-teacher relationship, enlightenment, opposites and the one beyond opposites, meridians, energy centres, energy body and acupressure points. Of course Chinese spirituality took its own unique path.
It would be hardly surprising to be honest, seeing as India and China share a massive border with one another.
Just wait there a second all of you: Taosim is not a religion at all! The key text Tao Te Ching is a masterpiece work on philosophy of mysticism. If we take every philosophical work involving some practical stuff on how to live as religious texts, then there would be an insane amount of religion out there. Well, there already are…
If Taoism is a religion, then I am a nine-tailed fox :rolleyes: