Suggestions for Hindu Renaissance

We see various threads in various communities about topics that Hinduism is in danger; Hinduism is facing threats from other religions etc etc. While they may be right, the question which naturally comes to our minds is "what can we do for Hindu Renaissance"

The following are my 2 cents on that subject. Others are welcome to add. Before I go into the subject, there are three points which are to be kept in mind.

Point 1: Hinduism holds that all paths lead to the same goal. Hence, we accept all other forms of worship apart from our own. We accept the Christian way of worship and also the Muslim way of worship. We not just tolerate, but accept them as valid... for the so-called tolerance is just self-righteous attitude- "I am right, you are wrong, but I am still 'tolerating' you". That’s not our attitude.

Our problem with other religions is their dogmatic attitude. We don’t have problem with the way Christians worship their god; we have problem when they dogmatically say that their path alone is true and all other paths are wrong. We have problem when they hurl abuses at us and our gods and call them satanic. We don’t have problem if they call Christianity a true religion, but we have problems when they say Christianity is the ONLY true religion. We have problem when they call Hinduism a false religion and ask people to convert and adopt various means like force and fraud to do it. The same is the case with Muslims.


Point 2: The battle these days is not between two separately standing groups, but between ideologies. The battle now is in the minds of the people.

Many of the so-called-intellectuals (read commies) do not behave anti-Hindu coz they consciously think "ok let’s be anti-Hindu", but coz many really feel that they are on the right side.

The media does not consciously think "ok let’s portray Hindus badly"- they really think that their position is right. So is the case with other institutions in India.

In theory, they are all good institutions.. the problem is in the direction, not in the motives. Same is the case with many p-seculars.

Hence what we have to recognize is that the battle now is in the minds. Things like "I will kick the p-secs", "the media is a demon" etc etc will not help.

Psychological-warfare is the reality today (note: I said psychological, not mere intellectual)


Point 3: The main emphasis of my points is "what we can do", not what we demand others to do.

I can demand that Muslims and Xtians should cease to be dogmatism, I can demand that govt stop its minority appeasement policies... I can demand and demand lot more. But how many of them are going to be accepted? So my focus here is not what we can demand from others, but what we can do in that direction. If others too accept some of the demands, well and good. But we cannot sit and wait for them to do so. We have to act.


Now coming to the points:

1. Character: This is of foremost importance. Though it is universally lacking, it is no justification for us. Nothing can be done by people who lack personal character. Hindus may cry foul about others, but until we conduct ourselves in a righteous manner, nobody can help us. Also, people judge a religion by its followers- if its followers are lacking in character, then so will be the opinion about the religion. Hindus are the brand ambassadors of Hinduism.

2. Strength: Hindus badly lack this. Strength here means Physical, Intellectual and spiritual strength. Why is an ordinary Hindu a coward and justifies his cowardness with various theories?
The first part is physical strength. We should never ignore the importance of having a strong body. We lack intellectual strength also. We simply feel that we have so many problems, but do not have the strength to tackle them ourselves. We just wait for some person to come and do all our work. One more Sankaracharya, one more Vivekananda. But what can even they do, if we do not have the strength enough to preserve what we have.

3. Pride: Hindus have been thought from day one in the schools that their forefathers were bunch of tribals; that their religion does not contain anything except some out dated practices and that their history is just a chronology of defeats. Hindus do not take pride in calling themselves Hindus. They are not even aware of the great philosophical and literary works in Hinduism. They just blindly ridicule everything in Hinduism. So, we have to first create pride among Hindus about Hinduism. We may talk and talk on how to protect Hinduism, but all that will be futile until we tell people why we have to protect Hinduism... what is there in it that is worthy of protection. Once we convince people of that and in taking pride about being Hindus, then the rest wil automatically follow.

4. Unity: The slavish mentality is that if one person tries to climb up, the rest try their best to bring him down. We should rather create unity among the Hindus. We should cease to act as an individual or as a member of a caste or a region, but acts as part of the Hindu society.

And this is not going to come if we sit and shout "come- unity, come- unity"... it comes by acting so. "You may not recognize that you are united, but still I will stay united with you; even if you are not helping me, I will still help you"- must be our attitude.

5. Redundant Practices: There are some old redundant practices like: Caste, Child marriages. Every effort should be made to remove these discriminations. Protecting Hinduism does not just mean protecting it from "others", but also from selfish and bigoted Hindus also.

6. Economy: Money always played and is going to play an important role in the society. You cannot teach the intricacies of the Upanishads to a hungry stomach. So, every Hindu should either directly contribute to the less privileged Hindus or contribute it to some good Hindu organizations. It is a good habit to fix that one will donate this much % of his/her salary to such causes and do so.

7. Service: One should always try to serve the less privileged in what ever means possible to them. Thanks to the NRI culture, people started thinking that they are giving some money and that will take of the service. But we have to remember that the Hindu society does not need our money, but our heart and soul- our services. Money is important, but not the most important. I will say a 30mins of service activity is more worthy than thousands of rs.

And it is two-sided- not just the served, but the person who did the service also transforms himself. It helps in getting a first hand feel and understanding of the real issues. People sitting in a/c rooms and theoretically talking about solutions and giving cheques are no help. What is wanted is a heart that feels. I understand it is very difficult for many; but try to do atleast something, no matter how little it is.

8. Re-conversions: As someone said, there are only two types of religious groups in India: Hindus and ex-Hindus. We should remove the anathema against reconversions and actively reconvert the willing. I am not talking about this from mere numbers point of view. Rather it has the ability to transform the outlook of Hindus from a slavish mentality trying to protect itself and an heroic mentality ready to conquer new frontiers.

Instead of passivity, activity; for the standard of weakness, the standard of strength; in the place of a steadily-yielding defense, the ringing cheer of the invading host. Merely to change the attitude in this way is to accomplish a revolution.

Anyhow, this must be accompanied by even more important thing: Hinduising the Hindus.

9. Awareness: Many Hindus are not even aware of the threats against Hinduism. Simply if a missionary comes in a good dress and speaks in a nice language, they fall for him; some even donate some money for them thinking that they will be using it for service purposes. But hardly do they know that this very money is used to convert some of the Hindus, and then make them stand against Hindus. Awareness is power, and for this all possible means should be explored.

Very very rarely do I come across a Hindu who understands mass psychology. There are people who really feel for the Hindu cause, but they sometimes blabber pathetically leading to the complete opposite of the desired. As I said earlier, the war now is in at the psychological level, hence it is very important to understand how it works and use it properly.


I feel that these are some things we need to concentrate upon. These may not stop the next terrorist from bombing another Indian city; these may not stop the next innocent Hindu falling for the missionary tricks and converting; these may not stop the next bill legalizing illegal immigrants into Assam from being passed.

But they can create a Hindu society which can archive all of them and much much more in the future... naah they can even create muslims and xtians who feel it is "cool" to be a Hindu.

Rebirth and the Population growth puzzle

I am sure many got this doubt in their minds that we say a jiva is taking birth after birth until he gets Moksha… but then if the same number of souls are reborn, how then is the population of humans on earth increasing. Shouldn’t it be constant?

[Note: though this is not the exact word, for the ease of understanding here, we will use Soul interchangeably with jiva]

The following are my 2 cents on this question. We know a very very little portion of the reality, hence I don’t claim it to be “THE” answer… I am just putting forward my understanding of various possible solutions after discussion with various wise people on this subject.


1. First and foremost- this “many” or the concept of separate jivas is just a reflection of the one. Like the one sun is reflected in various water surfaces and appears many, similarly, the jiva is such reflection of Brahman. Jiva is a like an instrument. From the Paramarthika level, there was never any individual soul, nor any re-birth. So there is no case of “increase” or “decrease” of number of souls, for there is no plurality in the number of souls.

2. Now coming to the Vyavaharika level, unlike the Semitic religions, Hinduism believes that plants and animals too have souls. Hence, one should not only concentrate on the human population. The animal and plant life also is to included in any discussion about rebirth. However, this aspect alone still does not fully answer the puzzle as atleast at the beginning of the Earth there was arguably no life and hence no plants+animals+humans.

3. But then there is one more aspect to be considered. Our scriptures talk of 14 planes of existence, of which humans are on the 8th; the higher planes include gandharva loka, deva loka etc etc. Their details may be symbolic in nature, but one thing we can be sure is that there does exist different planes of existence.

Hence when we talk of number of souls, we have to take into consideration the other planes of existence into consideration. Add to this the possibility of not just different planes, but different world itself. Yoga Vasistha talks of various parallel worlds at the same time. Since we don’t know much about them, we can only say possibly the number of souls in all these planes and worlds put together is constant.

4. There is also a different way to look at the whole phenomenon: why should we think that all the jivas are created at a single moment in the beginning of this cycle? Srusthi need not be a momentary process for all the souls to be created at a single point in time; it can as well be continuous process for jivas to be created at different point of time in a cycle. We can observe that even within a cycle, before the pralaya, individual souls are getting liberated, and hence putting a stop to their cycle of rebirth. Thus when a jiva can cease to exist within a cycle, it is also quite possible that a jiva can as well be start to exist within a cycle, without any need for it to get started only at the beginning of a cycle. Also, what can you call as the “beginning” of “cycle”? [I don’t know of any references either supporting or opposing my third possibility. It’s just *my* opinion.]

5. Actually what is life? what is the exact demarcation between life and life-less? If it is the consciousness which has manifested itself into various forms, that isn't it then true that the only difference that exists is not of type but of degree? A stone may be a very very low manifestation of consciousness and the human a very very high manifestation. But the difference is not of the type, but of the degree. Hence, are we not narrowing down our understanding by considering only more evolved forms and drawing an artificial demarcation line which actually does not exist? I can safely say that this whole process of counting only certain types as having soul and terming the others as "soul-less" is a basic flaw.

6. Finally there is the famous “poornamadah…” (part of a complete is complete in itself)… isn’t part of the infinite still an infinite? If Brahman is infinite, then isn’t its projection too not infinite?

If in that manner, the number of jivas is infinite, then what is “increase” or “decrease” in the number of jivas? It is like asking whether the number of drops in ocean increase or decrease.

Social Responsibilities and Govt.

Came across this interesting article by Gurumurthy in Indian Express:

And yet ‘we’ are less civilised than ‘them’

[Assuming you have read the article]

Most of the responses I get from people are either about how materialistic ‘they’ are or the other extreme of taking great trouble of finding some instance where Indians did not help their fellow Indians, but rather harassed them.

But both the responses will be to miss the forest for the trees. The point there is not whether the Indian society is perfect or whether it is the worst society.

The point I am trying to focus is that Nations are not merely made by Govts, instead they are made by people/communities.

Let it be the govt banning child labour or domestic violence or more issues, the attitude these days among the common people seems to be that it is govt’s business to tackle social problems. They forget that a minister signing a paper to stop domestic violence in no way really changes the society, unless the individuals in the society are changed.

I don’t deny that we require laws. But laws are not the ultimate.

Aren’t we going more towards a situation where the individuals cease to think in the community terms and look to the govt for everything?

I am not expecting any answers… just thinking in that direction.

Answers to some questions of a Christian

The following is the reporduction of a discussion with some Christians in a orkut community:

Emralda's Question:
Dear Hindu friends, I'd like to know your answers to the below questions. If you could take a few minutes to think about them, I'd be thankful.

What is the object of worship?

What is the purpose of prayer?

What is a human person?

What is sin?

What is salvation?

What is "good" conduct in society?

What happens after death?

How is one converted into the religion?

Thanks guys. Take care and God Bless!!


My Reply:
These are my views about Hinduism

>> What is the object of worship?

Idols are the preliminary means of worship. Higher include mental worship, yoga and meditation.

>> What is the purpose of prayer?

Strengthening the will. The Hindu idea is that man is the creator of his own destiny… and constant remembrance of an ideal either in the form of a god or saint strengths the human will to archive it.

>> What is a human person?

Divinity is the essential nature of humans… so is of all other creatures. Off-springs of humans will be humans and off-springs of a elephant will be an elephant. In the same manner, divinity and not sinfulness is the essential nature of children of god.

>> What is sin?

That which makes us more individualistic and selfish and thus makes us limited.

>> What is salvation?

Complete freedom… freedom from suffering, freedom from limitations of the world, freedom from one’s own desires.

>> What is "good" conduct in society?

this is based on the concept of Dharma. That which is unselfish and that which sustains the society is good. That which is selfish and destroys the society is bad. There are no hard and fast rules about god said like this, so this is bad or good.

>> What happens after death?

If he has not yet attained salvation, he takes birth again.

>> How is one converted into the religion?

how do i become a singer? - sing songs; how do i become a cricketer? - play cricket;
how do i become a hindu? - practice hinduism. That’s all there is fixed formal way of ‘converting’ to Hinduism. (see this blog entry of mine if you want more info)


Effulgent's Response:
Surya,
I have a few questions to your answers. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate some explanation on the following.

1) man is the creator of his own destiny

What is God's part in "destiny"

2) If he has not yet attained salvation, he takes birth again.

How will he "attain salvation"?


My Reply:
>> [1) man is the creator of his own destiny]

>> What is God's part in "destiny"

The Hindu-Buddhist-Tao-Sikh-Jain religions are not centered around belief in God, but rather centered around the concept of Dharma.

The god in Hinduism is not above Dharma, but he who has a role to play in the smooth running of Dharma. We don’t say “Rama is our god, so what Rama did is correct”. Rather we say “because Rama followed Dharma, he is great.”

To give a crude example, we humans can be compared to small pieces of ferro-magnetic iron pieces and God a huge magnet. Just like the ferro-magnetic material gets magnetic properties by rubbing to that big magnet, the humans become more and more Dharmic by constant remembrance in the form of worship and meditation of God. The inherent quality of magnetism can be compared to Dharma here.

So the God in Hinduism does not directly interfere with the ‘destiny’, but is rather a part in the functioning of Dharma.


>> [2) If he has not yet attained salvation, he takes birth again.]

>> How will he "attain salvation"?

Complete freedom is the idea of salvation. Complete freedom is gained when there are no limitations on us. There will be limitations on us as long as there is something beyond ourselves. There will be something beyond ourselves as long we have the idea of “not-I”. The idea of “not-I” will be there as long there is an idea of “I”. So remove this idea of “I” and you will attain salvation. Thus salvation means to completely annihilate the idea of “I” (ego). He who does so attains salvation.


Geetika's Response:
So it is the duty that is "rightness", neither external or internal, and one figures out this duty through prayer and meditation, right? So how is this duty then fulfilled exactly?

I guess the main difference between Christianity and Hinduism is the nature of God. In Hinduism there doesn't seem to be a "God" with His own character, separate from His creation, but rather a universal sense of the divine that exists in all creation.

Anyway, so my other questions are: what is the purpose/meaning of life, what is the purpose of salvation and where does the idea of love fit into all of this?


Effulgent's Response:
Surya, Can a person really anhiliate 'I'? According to you, can a person attain salvation (in your terms)?


My Reply:
@Geetika
>>So it is the duty that is "rightness", neither external or internal, and one figures out this duty through prayer and meditation, right? So how is this duty then fulfilled exactly?

If you are thinking duty as social obligations, then let me add that social duties are just part of the Dharma. Duty means that which needs to be done for the smooth functioning of Dharma.. it may be internal or external or in society.

Though prayer and meditation are helpful, they are not a necessity. A sincere atheist may be better placed than a religious-hypocrite in my view. There is no fixed book or prophet who is needed to help ppl figure this out. Different ppl may get though different means. The crucial things is not how they get it, but how sincere and determined they are to get it. If they are sincere, things are bound to come some way or other.

>>In Hinduism there doesn't seem to be a "God" with His own character, separate from His creation, but rather a universal sense of the divine that exists in all creation.

Hinduism and other Eastern religions does not believe in creation (in the sense that God decided to create the world on one fine day). So there is no creator god in Hinduism, so there is no question of it being separate from “creation”.

Also God is not an individual, but a quality... a divine perfection if we can put it that way, to which every human can also attain. The Buddhahood is the essential nature of all beings and everyone can attain it. If some thing is once possible, it must be always possible again. Universality is the basic requirement of any law to be true (else there will be anomalies). Repeatability is a corollary of universality.

If it is possible for one to see God, it should be possible for all to see God. If Meera saw Krishna, I too should have the potential to see Krishna. If one can be a son of God, any other person also should have the potential to be son of God. ('potential'- meaning- may not be immediately, but surely has a chance, provided he is determined). This may sound blasphemous according to AR.

>>what is the purpose/meaning of life

The word “purpose” presupposes that there is some intelligent being who created the life and as he did some act, his actions must have a purpose. When there is no creation, there is no purpose of creation. The word purpose also presupposes a personal god, which need not be the case.

So the question should be “what is the aim of life” (hope you understand the subtle difference between aim and purpose). The aim of life is freedom or salvation.

>>what is the purpose of salvation

Finding the fundamental human motive to all actions has been always been the complex question before thinkers. Marx tries to explain everything in terms of money, while Darwin tries to explain it as “survival instinct” (Freud unable to explain suicide also introduces another thing called “suicide instinct”). Like that different possibilities are given as per what is the basic human motive…. What drives men to do something and not to do something?

In Hindu view, the most fundamental of all is “freedom”. In what ever ppl do, you can see that they this is the one factor are work always. Whether it is survival instinct (freedom from pain) or suicide instinct (freedom from unavoidable pain) or craving for money (freedom from limitations and dependability) or concept of hell and heaven (freedom from death) or unselfishness (freedom from limited ‘ego’)…. Whatever be the action, you can see that this is one motive which is present in one way or other. Concept of Mukti(salvation) is based on this idea only.

>>where does the idea of love fit into all of this?

I never actually tried to fit in things, rather I study them as they are. So I can only talk about what is the role love plays in Dharma.

As we have seen earlier, Dharma is in the inherent order. So “what binds things together and does not allow them to go into chaos thus maintaining the order” is just another form of putting Dharma. It is in this context loves comes. Love is the means in which one thing binds to the other… binding an individual to another individual; individual to society; society to society; individual to god; god to individual… so on.


@ Effulgent
>>Can a person really anhiliate 'I'? According to you, can a person attain salvation (in your terms) ?

To be honest, I have never attained that state, so what I say in this regard will only be secondary knowledge and not direct knowledge. Many many Saints claim to have attained that state and they say that everyone can attain it.

Though one may not have totally annihilated ‘I’, times will come in one’s life where you catch glimpses of such ego-less state as if the doors of the infinite have been opened, which makes you feel that there is truth in the claim of the sages.

So if you ask me my personal opinion, yes I think it is possible.

Understanding how Mind works

Question:
I have a few doubts ...
Does bad thought mean bad karma ??
and
God "created" everything( action ). So is he too bound by the laws of karma ??
Is that why he has to incarnate himself ???
What does our scripture say about Karma ??
Does bad thoughts result in "bad" Karma.
Please enlighten me !!


My Reply:

>> Does bad thought mean bad karma ??

Very nice topic, something which was never discussed here. We can discuss the working and control of mind first (this in itself is a great topic). As “though” is something to do with mind, once we understand the working of mind, we can understand the whether it has any effect on the karma or not.

The Hindu view is that there are three states of mind:

1. Sub-conscious
2. Conscious
3. Super-conscious

Conscious state is when we are aware of what we are doing, what we are think etc etc. The intellect is working in this state.

Then there is the sub-conscious state. We may not be directly aware of its working, but it plays a more important role in deciding the things. Our dreams, or things like hypnotism etc are based on this state.

The western psychology also agrees with the same till now. But Indian psychology has one more level, what it calls, Super-conscious state. Here the person is more than awake. But limited logic is no longer binding on him. This is the state in which what we call things like intuition, telepathy etc etc happen.

When we perceive something through our senses (in the conscious plane) it creates a respective effect on the sub-conscious plane. If mind is compared to a lake, then the new though in it can be compared to a new whirlpool into it. This whirlpool is called vritti

Just like a lake may take and exhibit disturbances only on the surface for us to perceive, all the working is in the sub-conscious. Or you may take another example, the conschious mind is the all the info we dump into a computer from the input-output divises. But the working of that system will work not just on the latest signal, but all the previous stored up signals as well.

The mind also works something in those lines. Vritti (whirlpool, thought-wave) arises in the mind-ocean. It operates for sometime. Then it sinks below the threshold of normal consciousness. From the surface of the conscious mind wherein it was uppermost for some time, it sinks down deep into the region of the subconscious mind (Chitta). There, it continues to be a subliminal action and becomes a Samskara (impression). A conscious action-whether cognitive, affective or conative-assumes a potential and hidden (Sukshma and Avyakta) form just below the threshold of consciousness. This is termed a Samskara.

If vritti is the disturbance in the mind (disturbance here need not be seen only in a negative manner- its just an additional information from outside), this vritti creates a corresponding samskara or impression on the mind.

Today I may read about such and such person. From reading it either a positive or negative impression is created about that person in my mind. But the moment I change my attention to some other thing, this will be lost from the conscious mind. But it will be still stored in the sub-conscious mind. When I again in later time happen to meet this person, all the old impressions from the sub-conscious mind will come again and corresponding emotions will also accompany and I will feel happy or angry seeing that person.

What a person is decided by sum total of these samskaras. If there are more good samskaras in him, he is said to be good and if has more number of bad samskaras, he is said to be bad.

So essentially, Samskaras decide what a person is and how he behaves. Vrittis or thoughts from the conscious mind decide what Samskaras are formed.

Thus in a way every though has its effect on making a person what he is. So, the answer to the question is yes. Bad thought does mean bad karma (for karma is nothing but accumulated past impressions)

And this is the way Karma works… though our own minds… not by some supernatural phenomenon, with a chitragupta sitting somewhere in sky and keeping track of our karma account.


Question:

>> So, the answer to the question is yes. Bad thought does mean bad karma (for karma is nothing but accumulated past impressions)

What abt inauspicious thoughts that crosses the mind in a flash? do they also become a bad karma?

>> Today I may read about such and such person. From reading it either a positive or negative impression is created about that person in my mind

now I read abt Hilter and concentration camp, then I am bound store a negative impression in my mind...so if I meet him(Juz imagine), I am bound to get angry...now will that also become a bad karma?

What I want to know is, do all negative thoughts mean bad karma?

>> If I day night fill my mind with good thoughts then acting good will not be even take any effort… its will become a instinct.

Problem is with filling the mind with only good thoughts...Its damn difficult...Actually I have heard a saying

"Try to forget me, thats the best way to remember me"

Personally, I experience the same thing...The more I force myself, the monkey mind never listens and takes me in the opposite direction...So, How to fill ourself with good thoughts alone?

PS: MIND is awesome and very powerful...juz try to control it, to realise its true power


My Reply:

>> [So, the answer to the question is yes. Bad thought does mean bad karma (for karma is nothing but accumulated past impressions)]

>> What abt inauspicious thoughts that crosses the mind in a flash? do they also become a bad karma?

In auspiscious thoughts are more a result of karma, not the cause.

Why does inauspicious thoughts flash in the mind? It is coz they are not in the conscious mind, they are present in the sub-conscious and they come to the conscious level due to some stimuli.

For example, I see a certain guy and immediately I am full with anger. Here the thought you are seeing is not the cause, but the effect of previous anger stored against him.

So, such thoughts does not become bad karmas- rather they are the results (unless one instead of containing them tries to harness them)


>> [Today I may read about such and such person. From reading it either a positive or negative impression is created about that person in my mind]

>> now I read abt Hilter and concentration camp, then I am bound store a negative impression in my mind...so if I meet him(Juz imagine), I am bound to get angry...now will that also become a bad karma?

What I want to know is, do all negative thoughts mean bad karma?

Yes negative inputs does mean bad Karma. But there are two important things to remember:

1. Negative here means not in the real world, but our reactions to it. For example, if you read the history of Hitler and concentration camps, they in themselves does not invoke any karmas. Rather, it is your reaction to those which will evoke thoughts. Thus if reading them invokes a feeling of sympathy and concern in you, then they become good thoughts and Karma, not bad. Instead if the suffering invoke a sort of pleasure in you and you enjoy that sort of violence, then it leads to bad karma.

Hence, the word “negative” here is to be used here referring to our reactions, not merely to physical things.

2. The second point is the difference between the cause of negative thoughts and the negative thoughts coming as an effect.

If you input a vritti in the mind lake, that disturbance, though lays hidden for sometime, will come out one day. But in the first case you are introducing a vritti and in the second, it is coming out as a result. Once this comes out, you can contain it and hence end that karma there or you can let yourself further be controlled by that thought and thus make that earlier impression much stronger.

So it NOT the case that every thought that crosses the mind will create bad karma- rather it will be our reaction to it that will decide what will happen.

One more word in this regard. Many people might have experienced that in the beginning of their spiritual life, the negative thoughts seems to be increasing, instead of decreasing.

There is nothing to be worried about it. This happens coz now they are more conscious of the negative thoughts that’s all. Also, when you start cleaning an ink pot by pouring water in it, all that residual ink starts coming out of the bottle. Same will be the case with the mind. When we start pouring in good thoughts, all the previous negative impressions will start coming up.. and sometimes with much more vigiour. There is nothing to be worried about it… continue to pour in good thoughts and in due course they will subside.


>> [If I day night fill my mind with good thoughts then acting good will not be even take any effort… its will become a instinct. ]

>> Problem is with filling the mind with only good thoughts...Its damn difficult...

Of course it is… it is not the work of a day or two-it requires a lot of practice.

Also, as Krishna says in Gita, even a little of this Yoga will bring immense help.

And that’s the beauty in Hinduism- you have infinite number of chances- the war continues until you finally win… and there is no defeat for you; there is only postponement.

I may go at a snails pace, will very little improvement in a day…. doesn’t matter. What matters more is the direction you are going. Are you improving or falling further. No problem, even if the smallest of the improvement, it is an improvement never the less

The key line here is NOT whether you are being successful or not, but it is are you making an attempt?


>> Actually I have heard a saying

>> "Try to forget me, thats the best way to remember me"

>> Personally, I experience the same thing...The more I force myself, the monkey mind never listens and takes me in the opposite direction...So, How to fill ourself with good thoughts alone?

That depends on one’s personal nature. Even there you are trying to “forget Him”, hence you are in a way remembering Him.

It is indeed very difficult to get the monkey called mind into the control, but the key line as I said earlier is “are you improving; are you making an attempt”. Just think of this, and leave the results to the feet of the Lord. As Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to say, if you take one step toward God, God will take ten steps towards you. But you have to fist take that one step.

Neo-Buddhism

[If some one does not know what neo-Buddhism means, then I suggest he first read this article]

Quite occasionally we read news that some dalits have converted to Buddhism at such and such place. Now what should be our stand towards it.. what are the various pros and cons involved in it?

Conversions based on conviction are welcome, for Hinduism is an umberalla group of various traditions and beliefs and the conversion of one from one to another does not hurt it in any manner. The Hindu identity should be on the top one, then one can be a Advaitin, Dvaitin, Madhva, Buddhist, Jain, Animist, Shakti….. all of them are okay. Increased importance of any one of them is not a threat to Hinduism in any way, for all of them are same in spirit.

If you are referring to political conversions, like that of Neo-Buddhists, then I feel the following conclusion of Koenraad Elst on this subject sums it up very well:

---------------8<---------------

Neo-Buddhim is based on a mistake. Dr. Ambedkar opted for Buddhism on the somewhat contrived assumption that the Buddhist Sangha Councils provided a native model for modern parliamentary democracy, and mostly on the wrong assumption that Buddhim was an anti-caste reform movement. In Hindutva literature, in a few marginal corners, the latter assumption has been criticized, sometimes with reference to corroborative Western research. However, emanating from upper-caste Hindutva authors and written in a heated polemical style, this is unlikely to reach let alone convince the neo-Buddhist audience.

The neo-Buddhists are not Hindus, because they say so. Indeed, whereas all the other groups considered developed their identities naturally, in a pursuit of Liberation or simply in response to natural and cultural circumstances, only to discover later that this identity might be described as non-Hindu, the neo-Buddhists were first of all motivated by the desire to break with Hinduism.

The most politicized among them, all while flaunting the label “Buddhist”, actually refuse to practise Buddhism: because it distracts from the political struggle, and perhaps also because the Buddhist discipline is too obviously similar to the lifestyle of the hated Brahmins in its religious aspect. It doesn’t come naturally to political militants to sit down and shut all activist concerns from their minds, whether to recite Vedic verses or to focus on the dependent origination of their mental motions.

Yet, in broad sections of the converted Dalit masses, the practice of Buddhism is catching on. From a Hindu or a generally spiritual viewpoint, this is one of the most hopeful and positive developments of the post-independence period: many thousands of people who had truly been a Depressed Class, confined to lowly occupations, suffering humiliation and low self-esteem, often steeped in superstition and given to alcoholism, entered the path of the Buddha. Rather than talk about the spiritual path and the glories of India’s sages, as anglicized upper-caste Hindus do, they talk politics but do regularly sit down to apply the methods taught by the Awakened One

Most thinking Hindus, from Veer Savarkar to Ram Swarup, have welcomed the conversion of Dr. Ambedkar and his followers to Buddhism. Rather than joining hands with the Christians or Muslims, Dr. Ambedkar stayed within the national mainstream by taking refuge in the Buddha, thus averting what to Hindus looked like a looming disaster. That he abjured the Hindu Gods and the label “Hindu” seemed to matter less, especially when research shows that many neo-Buddhists still participate in Hindu forms of worship.

That the neo-Buddhists will move closer to the Hindu mainstream, and possibly even take a leadership role in future waves of religious revival, is rendered more likely by the evolution in society. Thanks to education, reservations, and the ever-widening impact of modernization on all Indians regardless of caste, the actual living conditions and cultural horizons of Dalits and upper castes become ever more similar. It is logical, then, that caste animosities will gradually give way to the increasing realization of common Indian and common human concerns, in mundane as well as in spiritual matters.

So, from the Hindu viewpoint, the practical conclusion ought to be: let the neo-Buddhists be non-Hindus. Their chosen religion will shield them from maximum exposure to anti-Hindu influences, and will encourage in them doctrines and practices with which most Hindus are familiar. The religious development and deepening of neo-Buddhism and the process of social reform and psychological modernization in Hindu society ensures that the two will meet again in the not too distant future.

--------------->8---------------

It is desirable and easy if we can assimilate those people directly into the spiritual traditions of Hinduism. However, if it is not possible in some cases, then the next best option will be to let them reject the Hindu label and assume the Buddhist label; we will ensure that they are atleast close to that Buddhist spirituality; once they come close to the Buddhist spirituality, they are already there, for there is no difference between Buddhist spirituality and Hindu spirituality. It will be basically a round about way of doing things, but if we don’t have any other better options, then let this be done.

Sanyasa- escapism?

Question:
Taking Sanyasin is wrong practise indeed. Vedas are definitely against it. Then why do they include it in Varnashram. Was Varnashram framed by the society?? It is said that we should have our Snanam once we see a Sanyasi. Then why do we fall at their feet.
Moreover Sanyasi's principle is to live a life((which according to them is Maya(Mith))) without any publicities and they shud'nt mingle with society. They shud take rest in a mat made of Dharbai.But now a days they become Gurus and they travel from state to state and country to country by plane or any mean which is air conditioned.


My Reply:
Firstly, no where in the Vedas does they talk about Sanyasa. It is just due to half-knowledge some people have.

Also, existence of fakes in no way undermines the importance of Sanyasa.

Rather it reinforces its importance. It is only 100 or 500 rupee note that people fake. They don’t fake a 2 rupee note. The existence of the fake does not bring down the prominence of Sanyasa, rather it only proves that there is some inherent supremacy in it which people are trying to exploit.

Of course, one should be careful of fakes and they should be dealt strongly. But their mere existence does not in anyway undermines the importance of Sanaya order. Rather, look at it this way: fakes in India have to fake themselves not as kings or business tycoons but as beggars to gain social status- this speaks volumes about the central ideals of India.

-----8<-----

A parting Address was given to Swamiji by the junior Sannyâsins of the Math (Belur), on the eve of his leaving for the West for the second time. The following is the substance of Swamiji's reply as entered in the Math Diary on 19th June 1899:

This is not the time for a long lecture. But I shall speak to you in brief about a few things which I should like you to carry into practice. First, we have to understand the ideal, and then the methods by which we can make it practical. Those of you who are Sannyasins must try to do good to others, for Sannyasa means that. There is no time to deliver a long discourse on "Renunciation", but I shall very briefly characterise it as "the love of death". Worldly people love life. The Sannyasin is to love death. Are we to commit suicide then? Far from it. For suicides are not lovers of death, as it is often seen that when a man trying to commit suicide fails, he never attempts it for a second time. What is the love of death then? We must die, that is certain; let us die then for a good cause. Let all our actions — eating, drinking, and everything that we do — tend towards the sacrifice of our self.

You nourish your body by eating. What good is there in doing that if you do not hold it as a sacrifice to the well-being of others? You nourish your minds by reading books. There is no good in doing that unless you hold it also as a sacrifice to the whole world. For the whole world is one; you are rated a very insignificant part of it, and therefore it is right for you that you should serve your millions of brothers rather than aggrandise this little self.

"With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads, and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere in the universe, That exists pervading all." (Gita, XIII. 13)

Thus you must die a gradual death. In such a death is heaven, all good is stored therein — and in its opposite is all that is diabolical and evil.

Then as to the methods of carrying the ideals into practical life. First, we have to understand that we must not have any impossible ideal. An ideal which is too high makes a nation weak and degraded. This happened after the Buddhistic and the Jain reforms. On the other hand, too much practicality is also wrong. If you have not even a little imagination, if you have no ideal let guide you, you are simply a brute. So we must not lower our ideal, neither are we to lose sight of practicality. We must avoid the two extremes. In our country, the old idea is to sit in a cave and meditate and die. To go ahead of others in salvation is wrong. One must learn sooner or later that one cannot get salvation if one does not try to seek the salvation of his brothers. You must try to combine in your life immense idealism with immense practicality. You must be prepared to go into deep meditation now, and the next moment you must be ready to go and cultivate these fields (Swamiji said, pointing to the meadows of the Math). You must be prepared to explain the difficult intricacies of the Shâstras now, and the next moment to go and sell the produce of the fields in the market. You must be prepared for all menial services, not only here, but elsewhere also.

The next thing to remember is that the aim of this institution is to make men. You must not merely learn what the Rishis taught. Those Rishis are gone, and their opinions are also gone with them. You must be Rishis yourselves.

----->8-----