Vedas Never Said that

bhadramoorthi · 11-11-2005, 06:37 AM

I have got tired reading the childish posts of the Vaishnavas.
They say Vedas said this, Vedas said that and so on.

But they never quote what originally they want to show me in the Vedas. Atmost, they would paste a line which has no head nor tail like the line "avamo agni vishno para..." and we cannot conclude the context from that.

I am sure Vedas never say us to be fanatics.Vedas only support the Smartha principles.

Vedas consider all the deities as the manifestation of the same paramAthmA and view all of them equally. In rudram, every thing would have been referred to as the Shiva svarUpam [form]. Purusha sUktham may see every thing as Purusha svarUpam. In some other place, varunA himself would have been referred to as paramAthmA; IndrA would have been identified as paramEshvarA; Agni as the only primordial godhead ; SuryA as the primordial God etc. Thus, it can be seen that, whenever Vedic sUkthAs refer to any deity, they identify it as the paramAtman Himself.

Infact, Vedas have unequivocally concluded that 'There exists only one satyA; many names have been give to it by gyAnis' (yEkam-sat-viprAhA-bahuthA-vadhanthI).

Similarly, even in the sphere of upAsanA, Vedas don't proclaim either 'Vishnu alone is superior and Shiva is inferior' or 'Shiva alone is superior and Vishnu is inferior'

Pankaja_Dasa · 11-11-2005, 10:32 AM

Your an idoit. I cannot find the actual quote, maybe you can look for it in your..

By the way, most of the posts on this forum are about Krishna, the poeple making them are usually of your kind. You just cannot get away from Him can you? Now what's so attractive about Krishna? Maybe ask yourself that question, instead of being an arrogant fool. [Did that Hurt your ego?]

Your kind talk a lot, but you don't actually do anything, you speculate on what the Vedas say, and profess to know it all. But your little babies crying in the lap of Maya. Vaishnavas say one thing, that we are servants of God, if YOU don't like that them go somewhere else. Haribol! Nitai-Gaura! Fun..

Pankaja_Dasa · 11-11-2005, 11:56 AM

www.krsnabook.com Chapter 20: Description of Autumn

The symptoms of the rainy season may be compared to the symptoms of the living entities who are covered by the three modes of material nature. The unlimited sky is like the Supreme Brahman, and the tiny living entities are like the covered sky, or Brahman covered by the three modes of material nature. Originally, everyone is part and parcel of Brahman. The Supreme Brahman, or the unlimited sky, can never be covered by a cloud, but a portion of it can be covered. As stated in the Bhagavad-gita, the living entities are part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But they are only an insignificant portion of the Supreme Lord. This portion is covered by the modes of material nature, and therefore the living entities are residing within this material world. The brahmajyoti--spiritual effulgence--is just like the sunshine; as the sunshine is full of molecular shining particles, so the brahmajyoti is full of minute portions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Out of that unlimited expansion of minute portions of the Supreme Lord, some are covered by the influence of material nature, whereas others are free.

maadhav · 11-11-2005, 12:48 PM

<< I am sure Vedas never say us to be fanatics.Vedas only support the Smartha principles.

Vedas consider all the deities as the manifestation of the same paramAthmA and view all of them equally. >>

Please clarify wht you ean by "fanatic", and "all deities".
List the deities included in your view.

bhadramoorthi · 11-12-2005, 04:09 AM

"...Your an idoit..."

thanks.carry on.
==================
"...You just cannot get away from Him can you? Now what's so attractive about Krishna? Maybe ask yourself that question, instead of being an arrogant fool. [Did that Hurt your ego?]..."

I keep away from Krishna, a myth.

===============
"....Vaishnavas say one thing, that we are servants of God, if YOU don't like that them go somewhere else..."

Vaishnavas are one among the funny sects inside Hinduism.
I like to be Her servant.So no matter of going anywhere.

We are free to worship our Ishta Deva.The Vedic path of upasana got trapped into a similar situation wherein fights regarding the superiority of respective ishta devatas became quite common.

Initially the Vedic religion was only Smartha.
There were people among smarthas who didn't have the spiritual maturity to engage in panchAyathana puja with special upAsanA for their ishta dEvathA and without indulging in 'para dEvathA nindhA'(denouncing of other deities). That is, they considered only their favourite deity as the primordial Godhead though at the philosophical level they seemed to have accepted advaitA.
Among such people, the hardcore/hyper(thivira) Vaishnavaites remained as dvaitins.

Pankaja_Dasa · 11-12-2005, 07:01 AM

I am sure while your having your cup of coffe, you don't write in this forum?

barney · 11-12-2005, 07:38 AM

Exactly what SP he founder of ISCK would use whenever he dislikes any one who go against his method. You have shown your colour and behavi like a fanatical Muslim would do if his belief is questioned. True Hindus would not sau such instead would try to explain their stand. Calling someone an idiot would not make you a smart either. He gave his view on the research and if you disagree than prove your point by quoting from the vedas and make him understand that what he had learned was wrong. Not cursing and swearing. It is unbecoming of people calling themselves Hindus.

Pankaja_Dasa · 11-12-2005, 07:57 AM

Your also an idiot. Be fooled in your attempts! To understand Krishna. If only you would give up your arrogance to understand scripture. And become humble. You regular blaspheme our Gurudeva, your a sick. Prabhupada has given more to this world than even Jesus, Mohammed, Sankracharya, etc. The list goes on. You won't admit it [but you know it]. You will find purity in His words, His knowledge is higher than that of Sankracharya [and SP regards Him as an acharya simply because He is an incarnation of Shambu [Bolanatha*]. Anyway, i had my rant at your lot, time to let you rot in your own stool. Hare Krishna

barney · 11-12-2005, 11:23 AM

I'd advice you to wash your mouth as it spews only filth. Is this what ISKC teaches their followers? I'd advice my friends to keep away from it as it would be a bad influene on anyone.

Even Lord Krishna dare not come near you for fear of being spewed with filth. No acharays or upasakars would teach such words to their students and I'm surprised SP had tought it members to use such words.

Ganeshprasad · 11-12-2005, 12:13 PM

Jai Ganesh

Re.
( Anyway, i had my rant at your lot, time to let you rot in your own stool. Hare Krishna )

where is your vivek, is this your spritual progress?

Jai Shree Krishna

11-12-2005, 01:34 PM

{I am sure Vedas never say us to be fanatics.Vedas only support the Smartha principles.}

I'm glad you've said that, Vaishnavas usually quote from the Puranas more and still state the Vedas say so. I remember one had told me that all Vedic literature (even those scriptures after the 4 Vedas) are part of the Vedas.

11-12-2005, 05:40 PM

Srila Prabhupada on the Vedas

In the Vedas, there are so many names described. Krsna says, [Bg. 15.15], "if one has not understood Krsna by studying Vedas, then he has not studied Vedas". It is very confidential. Otherwise, why does Krsna say I am to be known by the Vedas? If one has studied Veda, but has not understood Krsna, then his labor is useless. "If one is actually knowledgeable, then he chants the name of Krishna" [Bg. 7.19]. Shankaracharya said "bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam". That is real knowledge. But if one says that in the Vedas, you don't find Krsna's name, then he has not studied Veda. Because Krsna says, vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyam [Bg. 15.15]. The actual purpose of studying Vedas means to understand Krsna. If one has not understood Krsna, then srama eva hi kevalam [SB 1.2.8]. They have simply labored for nothing.

Krsna's name is very confidential. Jiva Gosvami has quoted from Atharva Veda that there is Krsna's name. And the best scholar of Vedas, Shankaracharya, says, sa bhagavan svayam krsna "Krishna is original Personality of Godhead". Then other acharyas they have supported Krsna's teachings, just like Ramanujacharya has quoted Vedic quotation, every shloka. So one has to learn the real Vedas, then he'll find, "Yes, Krsna is mentioned," Everywhere is Krsna's name. But one must actually be a scholar in the Vedas, then he'll find, "Yes, Krsna is mentioned in the beginning, in the middle, and at the end."

The impersonalists do not know what is Vedanta. In the beginning of Vedanta, athato brahma jijnasa. "Now try to inquire about this Supreme Brahman." The next verse is janmady asya yatah [SB 1.1.1], Brahman is there, from whom everything emanates. So now, what is that thing from which everything emanates? What is the nature of that thing? That is explained in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Bhagavatam is the real explanation of Veda. Vyasadeva is the writer of Vedanta-sutra, so he's writing himself under the instruction of Narada. So to understand Vedanta, you have to study Bhagavatam. He's explained janmady asya [SB 1.1.1]. Brahman is the original source of everything. Janmady asya yatah. Vasudeva is the source of Brahman.

11-12-2005, 10:18 PM

Dear Badramoorthi,

Vedas are full of praises of Vishnu and contempt for Rudra. I don't need to show verses to prove my points, our vaishnavite friends will gladly quote 100s of such verses.
So obviously there was tremendous fiction between vishnu worshipping aryans, Shiva worshipping dravidians and Shakti worshipping native bengalis during the compilation of vedas.

However, by the time Mahabaratha, all the indian races and religions had reconciled and began to tolerate and appreciate each others faiths. So please don't be disheartended by verses in Vedas that are against your beliefs, just take into consideration the warlike situation under which they were composed.

11-13-2005, 01:04 PM

Shivite

Are you really a Hindu? Do you see yourself as a Hindu or as a Shivite? I say that because I've never met a practicing Hindu who believes in Aryan Invasion theory.

Can I ask you something? Do you have anything against the Vedas?
You are a Shaiva Siddhanta follower right? Could you tell us a bit about it? I know Shaiva Siddhanta followers have something against the Vedas because their sect is based in the Siddhas not the Vedic Rishis, their scriptures are the Shaiva Agamas, not the Vedas and they do not believe in the Bhagavad Gita or the Krishna Avatar. Shaiva Siddhanta followers say their sect is older than the Vedas and was the dominant religion that existed in India before the Aryans supposedly invaded/settled in northern India.
With all this in mind, I suppose it is easier or more acceptable to you to believe in the AIT.

So it is incorrect for Hindus to say the Gita is the 'bible' of Hinduism when some sects don't believe or follow it.

I have nothing against you as a Shaiva Siddhanta follower, I just want to know more.

11-13-2005, 01:49 PM

I firmly believe in AIT, coz only a blind person can't see the racial and philosophical difference between South Indians (Especially Tamils and Malayalees) and North Indians.
I have great affinity to historical and scientific research in this area. I also firmly believe that ancient Dravidians where Shiva worshippers. I have nothing against vedas,but am trying to deduce from Vedas some information about our Dravidian past.

Saiva sidhanta was a great philosphy whose origins definitely precedes vedas. Siddhars like Bogar, Pampatti sidhar, etc.. practiced what we might now call Karma yoga or Kundalini yoga.

They vehemently opposed ritualistic worship, vedic scriptures and caste descrimination. This became one of the reason why their works were systematically destroyed by brahmins, who branded them as anti-vedics and heretics.

But thanks to effort by U.V.Swaminatha Iyer, who went all over Tamil Nadu and salvaged lot of ancient Tamil scriptures written on palm leaves, we have few surviving sangam literatures like PathuPaatu, Ettu Thogai, etc.. But we still don't have the Saiva sidhantha scriptures, but we only have summary of their philosophies like great phrases Anbe Sivam (God is love, love is God), Onre Kulam Oruvare devan (All world is one community and there is but one god), etc..

They invented Siddha medicine, which is equivalent to Ayurveda medicine of Aryans.

They were mostly worshippers of universal truth Shiva-Shakti (not vedic Rudra).

11-13-2005, 02:09 PM

>So it is incorrect for Hindus to say the Gita is the 'bible' of Hinduism when some sects don't believe or follow it.<

Yes you are right, but unfortunately might is right.
North Indians far exceed South Indians in population and are dominating the scene right now as true representatives of hinduism. Also Brahmins are very intelligent and well off and are able to effectively carry over their opinions to general populace.
Hopefully, with good policies like Reservation system, we can see more people from downtrodden communities come up in life and effectively voice their views & philosophies to the world.

maadhav · 11-13-2005, 09:21 PM

<< I firmly believe in AIT, >>

and BBC now says AIT was just a fabrication.
-------------
Columns by S.Gurumurthy Nov 13, 2005

Source: http://www.newindpress.com/column/News.asp?Topic=-97&Title=S%2EGurumurthy&ID=IE620051028230551&nDate =&Sub=&Cat=&

As BBC proves Vivekananda right after a century...
Saturday October 29 2005 09:27 IST
S Gurumurthy
‘‘Do not believe such silly things as there was a race of mankind in South India called Dravidians differing widely from another race in northern India called the Aryans. This is entirely unfounded.’’ This is not from a saffron scholar of the 21st century. But Swami Vivekananda said it before an audience in the then Madras city as the 19th century was drawing to a close.

Not knowing where the bright Aryans came from, ‘‘of late, there was an attempt made to prove,’’ he laughed and said: ‘‘Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes.’’ Yet the theory trotted out by F.Max Mueller in 1848 tracing the history of Hinduism to the invasion of indigenous people by Aryans around 1500 BC has obsessed India since then.

It is now well known that the scholarly work of Max Mueller, once considered independent, was bought by the East India Company, and was thus a colonial view. Even as Swami Vivekananda dismissed Max Mueller’s theory as silly, he lauded Mueller’s work on Indian scriptures as next only to that of Sayanacharya.

Max Mueller’s theory dominated the Indian academic and intellectual debate and politics of the 20th century and wrought havoc in the national psyche since then. It divided and disturbed the national mind; even threatened to sever southern India from the rest. Any dissent towards this view is even now castigated and isolated, as a sort of intellectual terrorism holds sway. But sustained and strenuous work by dedicated scholars has decimated this silly theory over the last hundred years.

Yet, billions of pages of instruction in schools and colleges have, since Max Mueller expounded this view, enduringly poisoned and damaged the Indian psyche. And here comes a confession from a source linked to the very perpetrators of this intellectual crime, the ex-colonisers, that the theory, which Swami Vivekananda dismissed as silly, seems silly after all!

Weeks back the BBC website came out with the startling disclosure that ‘‘there is now ample evidence to show that Max Mueller and those who followed him were wrong.’’ Answering ‘‘why the theory is no longer accepted,’’ the BBC says that ‘‘the Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence’ and ‘‘later research has either discredited this evidence or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations likely.’’

More important, the BBC admits that ‘‘modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history.’’ Even more important, it says that ‘‘it is generally accepted that the Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.’’ More, ‘‘the changes brought to India by other cultures’’ are no longer thought to be a major ingredient of the development of Hinduism.

The confession is an honest one. For the BBC does not only agree with Swami Vivekananda, it also points to the ‘dangers’ of the theory. It says that the theory ‘‘denies the Indian origin of India’s predominant culture’’; ‘‘gives credit for the Indian culture to the invaders from elsewhere.’’ It ‘‘teaches that the most revered Hindu scriptures are not actually Indian’’ and ‘‘devalues India’s culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.’’

It goes further and says that the ‘theory was not just wrong’, but ‘included unacceptably racist ideas.’ It suggested or asserted that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right but a synthesis of elements from other cultures; that Hinduism was not authentically Indian in origin, but the result of cultural imperialism; that Indian culture was static and only changed under outside influence; that the Dravidians were a nobody and got their faith from the Aryan invaders; that the indigenous people could acquire new ideas only from invaders or other races; that race was a biological, not a social, concept and thus rationalised ranking people in a hierarchy and the caste system; that the north Indian people descended from invaders from Europe, and so socially were closer to the British, thus rationalising colonialist presence; that the British were reforming India like the Aryans did thousands of years ago, thus justifying the role and the status of the Raj. Finally it says, ‘‘it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving falsely a later date to the elements of Indian science and culture.’’ Believe it?

This confession of wrong done to India and high praise for India’s endogamous antiquity from an unlikely source approves of not just what Swami Vivekananda said over a century ago, but validates the ‘saffron’ view. This endangers the ‘secular’ scholarship whose bread and butter is now under threat. How will they continue to assert that India is more a khichadi than a continuity of undated antiquity?

How will they go on asserting that there is nothing Indian about India; that there was never anything called India at all; that there is today an India courtesy the invaders – the Aryans, Turks, Moghuls or the British; that thanks to the British we are a nation....

Yes, the secular scholarship is in deep trouble. But they have a solid reason to feel assured that it will take decades for this truth to overcome the billions of pages of falsehood printed and circulated so far. For the grains of truth to emerge from this mountain of falsehood will take a life’s time.

======

11-13-2005, 10:08 PM

People of Tamil Nadu who have been following political situation there and have read the pro-BJP magazine Tughlaq (author Cho was a BJP MP) know Mr.S.Gurumurthy too well.

Tamil Nadu government has recently issued arrest warrent against him for some criminal charges, but he eluded arrest by escaping to Bombay. My intention is not to character assasinate Gurumurthy, but to let you know the background of the author.

If you notice, the author has cunningly left out references to the BBC article. Moreover, he has unnecessarily added emotional punches like linking BBC claim with Vivekananda, thereby trying to bring followers of great 20th century saint to his fold.
He has also left out the scientific evidence put forth in the original BBC article. I'm sure BBC wouldn't have published on its own, anything that