Ashvamedha

The videos included in this post are the two mentioned in comments from the post before this. They are somewhat lengthy talks (as far as YouTube videos go) by a Doctor from the Oxford Center for Hindu Studies.

I this first video, which is the longer of the two, the speaker details pretty well how vast the collection of Hindu scriptures is and goes into some detail about selective Hindus can be in identifying which scriptures they will or will not adhere to. I found this interesting because it’s one of the aspects of the practice of Hinduism that I think really sets it apart from the other major world religions.

With many of the other major world religions there can be found a prevalent habit of picking-n-choosing which holy literature is most valid or applicable to today’s living. In their context (the context of the Abrahamic religions, for example), however, believers are quite literally talking from both sides of their mouth. They’ve already attributed ultimate sanctity and supreme authority to their holy texts and maintain that claim all the while they select which parts of the same text support the current goal or focus. Naturally, this leads to contradiction and hypocrisy – which I have found to be inherent in Abrahamic religions, specifically. You end up with a religion saying one and ONLY one text is holy (Only the Bible, or only the Q’uran), and then in that same text find them pointing to words that say you should kill someone wearing clothing made from cotton-polyester blends or who eats shrimp (Leviticus) while ignoring other parts of the same textual body that says we should love people as much as we love our own self (New Testament).

In Hinduism, according to the video, Hindus have an historic tendency to abandon entire bodies of scripture when then become irrelevant or create situations like the one mentioned above with the Abrahamics. An example cited in the video is of Gandhi’s stance on widow remarriage. The Manu Smriti / Dharma Shastras are clear that widows are not allowed to remarry. But this was challenged in a big way. Another example was that of wives seeing their husbands as gods – despite poor behavior on the husband’s part, including things like adultery. The speaker was among a group of Hindus and asked the women present about if they do this or would be willing to, and laughter was the answer he received in addition to a lady who went so far as to say that scripture was evil. For Hindus, it seems, the relationship to scripture is sacred insofar as the scripture itself makes sense and serves the purpose of benefiting the greater good, otherwise the scripture risks losing its sacred status in a very real way.

This next video is one in which worship itself is discussed a bit more. The speaker still touches a bit on scripture and its value, but relates it the actual process of worship within Hinduism. He points out that there are different varieties of Sanskrit, some of which are so poorly understood that there are yet words in our Vedas the meaning of which is not likely to be known ever. I appreciated this video because he discusses what murti wrship really means and does so in an intelligent way. He provides answers to some common questions that probably most Hindus would agree on and speaks some about the differences of belief within Hinduism in regard to prana, pranaprathistha, whether the murti is actually god or just the carrier, whether we really are in the presence of god when a murti is worshipped or whether we might be just as effective worshipping the god-amsha within instead. And I also really liked how he was knowledgeable about the Vedas and other better-know Hindu scriptures in regard to how little they actually “support” murti worship.

These videos are definitely informative and an overall good resources that may well answer a few questions for the wondering mind. If you have a free hour, or so, I would encourage you to watch these. If they don’t change your mind on one thing or another, then they may well at least help you understand the larger Hindu picture. It’s probably not entirely what you think.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Aum Shanti

Advertisement

Unaware

Today is Friday. All throughout each and every week I eat like an Amish person on a diet. Fridays, however, are my splurge day. I usually have breakfast out, usually Subway. I always eat out for lunch and dinner each Friday. This morning’s breakfast was Starbuck’s, but today’s lunch came from Subway.

There are a number of Subways I frequent and some are “better.” Virtually all are owned and staffed by Indians. The one I went to today is a favorite of mine. They’re always glad to see me (and, I assume all others getting a sandwich). As usual, I ordered a flatbread veggie sub. It’s a delicious and healthy vegetarian meal that I’m particularly fond of. Very few times have I ever been disappointed by this sandwich.

As my sandwich was passed from one artist to the next along its way to the register, I requested the toppings I desired. After heaping lots of wonderful plantlife into my meal I indicated, “That’s all.”

“That’s all?” the middle-aged male indian sandwich artist asked, puzzled at the lack of dead animal on the bread. “Yeah. Is that okay?” I replied. “Yes. It’s very okay.” was his final answer.

I’m certain this devout Hindu man, as well as his many coworkers – all very obviously devoted Hindus – doesn’t recognize that I am also Hindu and that this influences my dietary choices. Still, every single employee at this location has never been anything except nice to me. They always seem to appreciate that I don’t heap flesh onto my sandwich, but instead usually request extra spinach or olives.

As I sat there eating, a lesson on behaviour – on Karma Yoga – dawned on me. We should be kind to everyone. Most humans have very localized awareness, and thus also have very limited knowledge of the world around them. For obvious reasons this has been a source of turmoil in the world since humanity’s beginning. We would all do well to always be reminded that we’re simply unaware. You might never know who’s a Hindu and who isn’t (and it shouldn’t matter), especially since you’re likely to judge life on preconceived notions in your own flawed mind.

Recognition of one’s “unawareness” serves more than one wonderful purpose. First, it helps facilitate humility. When you know how much you don’t know, you’re more likely to always acknowledge that you’re not better than anyone else. (A trick of Maya, interestingly, is that those who recognize no difference among others or assume a humble role among others, often end up “better” than others.) Also, knowing that you’re unaware instantly opens you up to growth – one of the few things that can remedy the degree to which you remain unaware. Also instantly, knowing one’s “unawareness” and patiently accepting it with humility, along with the aforementioned implications, frees one from many of the fruits of one’s actions (karmaphala), thus speeding the “moksha process.” Herein lies a fine example of a little Karma Yoga leading to much Jnana Yoga… and ultimately the experience of moksha.

Om Shanti

Aadi Pujya

As I left Christianity, one thing I was glad to leave behind was the belief of a literal Heaven. Streets of gold, pearly gates, the whole bit. I recall in Revelation, the last book of the Bible as we know it currently, there are actual 3-Dimensional measurements of New Jerusalem as it sinks from Heaven down onto Earth to establish the new order of God on Earth. Nothing like the idea of repenting for every mis-step your entire conscious life to go and spend forever in a cube. Mystical or not, no way THAT sounds like jail. (note: sarcasm)

In that light, one of the appeals Hinduism held for me when I first encountered it a decade or so ago is that the destination of us all is the same place we started – an infinitely infinite Infinity that literally transcends any description our brawniest brains might conceive. To me, THAT notion/definition of God/Heaven seems to not only be the most satisfying and least human, but also the most logical and most likely. But it seems I’ve been wrong.

As I deepened my journey into Hinduism, I learned of MANY different so-called heavens. It’s been said that there are more religions within Hinduism than outside of it and that there are 330 million gods in Hinduism. I suppose each has His/Her own “loka” or Heaven where His/Her devotees potentially land after the finish of this life. The first of these lokas that I learned about, some time ago actually, was Vaikuntha. This, apparently, is the hopeful resting place of all the Krishna-centric worshippers in the world. In my unfair ignorance, and before learning much about the other lokas, I thought to myself, “Just figures. Typical!” Within the main branches of Hinduism (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, & Smartism), it has always seemed to me that Vaishnavism has the highest number of parallels with the Abrahamic Faiths, namely Christianity. (Please note: that while that is still (mostly) my view, I’m also able to recognize immense differences between Vaishnavism and Christianity that I find very comforting.) Kailasha is the heaven dedicated to Shiva and even that seemed more reasonable to me. Afterall, we’re made of consciousness – which Shiva represents -and surely consciousness is where we’re destined to return to, so… But whatever, that kind of thinking could be classified as sectarian hair-splitting and ultimately is unproductive. Suffice to say, every god has a loka and we’re all best served to understand these lokas as something like, “literal, independent-but-nondifferent, … and certainly with a grain of salt.”

Having said all that, while catching up on posts from a secret Facebook group I belong to I came across some loka-vidya for the “heaven” where Ganesha and His devotees supposedly reside in the hereafter.

Ganesha’s lokah is known as either Swanandalokah or Nijalokah. This loka is located above Swarga lokah and is placed in the middle of an ocean of sugar cane juice (ikshu sagara). So above Swargalokah, in the middle of Ikshu Sagara, in the middle of a white lotus (swetha kamala), and on top of that on a silk sheet (ratna gambali) can be found Bala Ganapati being attended to by the Ashta Siddhis. Nearby is Samaveda Purusha reciting the Sama Veda.

And there you have it. The “heaven” I can look forward to.

Om Shanti

Shivohum and Same to You, too.

One of my favorite publications is a Shaivite magazine, “Hinduism Today.” I’ve had a subscription for years and have purchased a few subscriptions for others as well. Whether one happens to be a vaishnav, shaivite, shakta, or smarta, this magazine is invaluable. It’s been instrumental in my own growth, for sure. One thing I repeatedly adore about it is that, although it is technically sectarian, it differs from most other sects in its openness and inclusiveness. As such, while it’s definitely a Shiva-oriented source, it does great work in covering the broader picture of Hinduism and the Hindu diaspora.

The most recent issue has a focus on Swami Vivekananda, which has been really great for me. His lineage appears to be from the Shakta denomination of Sanatana Dharma, his own guru being a priest for Kali at one of Her temples … in Dakshineshwar, I think. Along with this focus on Vivekananda and all he did for our faith, there are various other articles. One of these deals with the Namaste greeting, and is what this post’s primary focus is meant to be.

The article begins in pointing out the differences and immensely varied implications to be found in the Western handshake and the Anjali Mudra (Namaste greeting). For the sake of brevity and keeping focus, from here out I’ll use bullet points to list what I think are the main talking points of the article.

• The handshake originates in medieval Europe. Weaponry on the person used to be a more common sight, and so was fear. The resultant “accidentally retributive” attacks were sometimes thwarted by showing the other guy your open hand (“I’m unarmed, don’t stab me!!!”). Later, with a little cultural evolution, the open hands were joined upon meeting or passing, and we now have the handshake.

• The anjali mudra is highly symbolic: “Anj” means to adore, celebrate, honor; the pressing of the hands together symbolizes the bringing together of spirit and matter; the hands coming together symbolizes the self meeting the Self.

• Three main forms of the Namaste greeting exist: 1) Simple meeting of the hands, vertically at the solar plexus; 2) Same as before, plus the addition of raising the hands until the upper fingertips touch one’s third eye; 3) Same as before, plus the addition of taking the joined hands to a position above the head at the aperture in the crown chakra known as brahma-randhra. These three variations are progressively formal.

•  The handshake is an outwardly conquering gesture. It hints at Western man’s desire for conquering and acquiring. An overly strong handshake can be meant for purposes of intimidation, and a too-weak handshake is also very telling.

• Western culture is summed up in the handshake: reaching out horizontally to greet another; we reveal our humanity; we convey how strong we are, how nervous, how aggressive or how passive. Namaste reaches in vertically to acknowledge that, in truth, there is no “other.”

• It’s more civilized to Namaste instead of shaking hands. Popes never shake hands. Kings never shake hands. Even mothers don’t shake hands with their own children. Namaste is cosmically different: Kings do namaste, Satgurus namaste, mothers namaste their own families, we all namaste before God, a holy man, or a holy place. The namaste gesture indicates our inner valuing of the sacredness of all. Namaste is also more practical: A politician or performer can greet fifty-thousand people with one Namaste and the honor can be returned.

• The gesture has a subtle effect on the aura and nerve system. The nerve currents of the body converge in the feet, the solar plexus and the hands. To balance this energy, and prevent its loss from the body, yogis and meditators sit cross-legged and bring their hands together. The anjali mudra is a simple yogic asana.

• An increasing number of celebrities and others around crowds are adopting the Namaste greeting as a polite means of avoiding the transmission of contact diseases. The Namaste greeting has become a veritable icon of Indianness, although an ever-increasing number of non-Indians are also using the greeting.

I’m not sure that all of these points do justice to the practicality, intuition, and value that the Namaste greeting holds versus the handshake. Hopefully these points, as highlighted from the article, hint at some of this.

Om Shanti