Orthodoxy or unorthodoxy in Vedic Dharma?

 

 

 

A) Simply being initiated in an unbroken paramparā hailing from a bona fide ācārya of a bona fide sampradāya does not mean that the current mentor/guru will, also, be ideologically correct both in his theory and praxis — if such a ‘neo’ mentor chooses to not abide by the staunch orthodoxy on the pretext of making revolution.”

 

B) Acceptance of the whole notion that the orthodox Vedic traditions need to be changed in order to spread, promote or even safeguard Sanātana-dharma and Āryan-saṁskṛti is the first defeat of the followers of Sanātana-dharma. Because, if the orthodox tradition is not let to remain orthodox, the Vedic tradition is no more the Vedic tradition. Then, to keep spreading the mutated form of Hinduism in the name of the spread of Hinduism is useless and futile. The scriptures of Sanātana-dharma like the Vedas etc. are perfect due to their origination from the exhalation of the Paramātmā Vāsudeva and therefore, they do not need any ‘circumstantial supportive adjustment’. In short, if Hinduism (Sanātana Vedic Dharma) is made ‘Sai Baba ism’ and then spread under the name of Hinduism, we don’t think it is the spread of Hinduism.

 

C) So that the following dictum of Upaniṣads – “nāyamātmā pravacanena labhyo…yamavaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṁ svām” & ‘kṣurasya dhārā niṣitā duratyayā durgaṁ pathas tat kavayo vadanti” + that of Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā – “bahūnāṁ janmanām ante….sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ” and those of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam – “muktānām api siddhānāṁ…sudurlabhaḥ praśāntātmā koṭiṣv api mahāmune” + “…muktiṁ dadāti karhicit sma na bhakti-yogam” (After many births and very rarely a selected person actually obtains God.) – can come true, deviant religious organizations and illegitimate spiritual leaders are needed who can propagate a deviant philosophy cum spiritual illusion not in alignment with scriptures. In reality, only the propagation of a correct ideology in a scriptural perspective is considered factual spiritual preaching. All rest is either the semblance or a perversion.

 

D) Moreover, attacking any messenger not appointed by God (anyone who claims to propagate Vedic Dharma by diluting its orthodoxy and/or giving it a perverted/mutated form — is a messenger not appointed by God) is a very pious work needed to be done by the traditional Vedic pīthādhipatis/pontiffs. And for this, they will have to care least for the vox populi — because, scriptures and vox populi cannot go side by side.

 

E) Vedic orthodoxy has only one definition (it does not retain multiple definitions) — the adherence to the mukhyataḥ janmanḥ + gauṇatah guṇa-karma-svabhāvebhyaḥ’ path of Vedic varṇāśrama as chalked about by śrutis and smṛtis and as implemented and propagated by the traditional ācāryas like Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja etc. Any so-called revolution is not a social/cultural/religious/spiritual/political/academic revolution, if it goes in contravention with the orthodox implementation of scriptural values – for (because) the trans-human (अपौरुषेय) Vedic scriptures of Vedic Dharma are God-manifest and are above the quadruple contamination of bhrama, pramāda, vipralipsā and karaṇāpāṭava and the great ācāryas of classical traditions who have interpreted the same (especially, in relation with varṇāśrama) were no ordinary mortals infested with these quadruple faults.

 

F) As we have clarified many times in much detail on many different cyber forums (it is needless to go into such detail here), the ‘brāhmaṇatva’ of Vajra-sūcikopaniṣad is not in the same context as that of the brāhmaṇatva which is defined in the context of varṇāśrama. How? The brāhmaṇatva of varṇāśrama is defined in śrauta and gṛhya-sutras of the Vedas, the Brāhmaṇa-granthas (forming the Vedic canon), the dharma-śāstras (smṛtis) and in Paurāṇas etc. Whereas, the ‘brāhmaṇatva’ which Vrajasūcikopaniṣad talks about is on a very pāramārthika level and is not related with the varṇāśrama structure. The definition of brāhmaṇatva given by Vajrasūcikopaniṣad even disregards the qualities like ‘śama-dama’ etc. in constituting the brāhminical nature. However, in the varṇāśrama context, these attributes like śama-dama etc. are regarded as the qualities of a brāhmaṇa in the varṇāśrama structure. Therefore, the brāhmaṇatva of discussed by Vajrasūcikopaniṣad is not at all related with the varṇāśrama structure. That pāramārthika brāhmaṇatva is the brahma-bhūta or jīvana-mukta stage of the avadhūta-paramahaṁsas. Hence, to quote Vajrasūcikopaniṣad’s pramāṇam to refute the traditional janma-ādhārita varṇāśrama-nirdharaṇam is an out of context misapplication of scripture.

 

G) All heterodox alterations (initially, introduced under the garb of circumstantial adjustments and social suitability) which are commenced by the unorthodox offshoots oozing from the orthodox Vedic sects — do take on a giant figure over the time — bringing that original orthodox tradition (the parent) to the situation of a conglomerate with the Abrahamics and other anti-Vedics and non-Vedics. Therefore, any heterodox movement needs to be curbed through rationally sharp arguments backed by traditional scriptural interpretation — at its very onset. No need to spare any mercy or think twice on it.

 

H)  A need has arose now for the staunch orthodox Vedics to come to the front line and take over the charge and their first target should not be those, explicitly, decrying the Vedic orthodoxy — but, rather, those playing double games as when needed, opportunistically — for a person who cannot be loyal to principles and ideology — he cannot be loyal to his own self — in the wake of the allurements of wealth, women and prestige/followers (kañcana-kāminī-kīrtti-parigraḥah). Hope our indication will be understood, gravely. The official war has now begun on the cyber platform and we are in no mood to relent.

 

I)  Such pseudo-Vedic people do, outwardly, seem to belong to one of the staunch orthodox Vedic traditions/Mutts, but, when they open their mouth, their blabbering reveals the venom of heterodoxy. They are far more dangerous than those who, openly, consider themselves apostates from the Vedic orthodoxy.

 

Therefore, first let us fight this war and then we shall think of fighting with the ideologies of Abrahamic faiths and other anti-Vedics. If our house is not orthodox, we are not going to assimilate any long-lasting auspiciousness by spreading the Vivekananda-typed and Shirdi-Sai-Baba typed Hinduism.

 

J) Sanatana dharma is in crisis not because of the orthodox approach, but due to the hypocrites diluting it for short-lasting fame obtained from the appeasement of those namesake Sanātanīs whose views have been influenced by the Western-styled McCaulay created academic institutions and have turned into Westernized Vedic views. The exponents of Abrahamic faiths like Muslims etc. could not destroy our Vedic saṁskṛti in past 1000 years as much these pseudo-Sanātanīs have done in last 30-40 years.

 

K) And the main cause for such dilution is the inherent embedded yavana-saṁskāra (which the Westernized Vedic Hindus have imbibed from their Westernized academic institutions’ ideological training) which makes these Westernized Vedics to disregard the traditional orthodox age-old interpretation of scriptures by, firstly, disregarding the traditional dharma-gurus and then, considering, themselves (the Westernized Vedics) to be in the position to, rightfully, interpret the scriptures and tradition! This is the starting point of all doom!

 

L) Even an honest thief accepts that he is a thief, when caught. But, the pseudo-Vedics will never accept despite knowing their misalignment with the orthodoxy. However, the root cause for this is because they do not want to adjust themselves according to the scriptures and tradition. Rather, they want to adjust traditions and scriptures according to them. This is called śāstra-śoṣiṇī and anādi-kālīna-paramparā-śoṣiṇī āsurikī vṛtti and nothing more. They are mere exploiters of the scriptures and tradition. Full-stop.

 

 
— Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara Gurupādācārya Svāmī

One thought on “Orthodoxy or unorthodoxy in Vedic Dharma?

  1. Our point regarding the ‘messenger’ in Sanatana-dharma was not to be taken in the sense of Abrahamic prophets, for even the Vedic guru-parampara/sampradaya system acts as the messenger disciplinic succession from God down to the common beings. This is the import of the Srimad-bhagavad-gita verses 4.1 + 4.2 — “śrī-bhagavān uvāca — imaḿ vivasvate yogaḿ proktavān aham avyayam / vivasvān manave prāha manur ikṣvākave ‘bravīt //” + “evaḿ paramparā-prāptam imaḿ rājarṣayo viduḥ / sa kāleneha mahatā yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa //”. Now, if any messenger (Vedic acarya/guru — not prophet of Abrahamic faiths) claims to belong to any particular classical Vedic tradition, but does not retain its classical ideology — such a messenger (guru) is heterodox. This was our point. Thanks for your kind understanding.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s