|
03-12-2007, 11:04 PM
|
#41 | ||||||
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I don't know what history you've been studying, but it seems to be a history concocted in your own head. Quote:
Read what I've said before...evolution of religion is what has happened in Hinduism. That is what is reflected in these later scriptures which do look back to the Vedas with a reverance. Quote:
I'm sure they are, and I'm sure they are not half as biased as you. Quote:
From your previous posts you've made it clear your position. You bring all the problems down to Brahmin and Vedas. And for your information I have no problem with accepting sects against Brahmin dominance as Hindus. Whereas I do have a problem accepting sects that promote the hereditary caste system as Hindus, because something like that can never be true. Quote:
Here you go again with your generalising nonsense. You can acuse me of being many things but I know I am not what you seem to have in your mind. Generalising people is something you need to snap out of. It is a bad habit and you a forming a picture of me in you mind that I know is entirely false. For your information, I don't like "violent Hindustan related organisations" or the way they are. I don't like those sort of people, their methods or what they stand for. What I am saying is I find your idea of the history of Hinduism and brahmins "brahminizing" all the Indian religions completely bizarre, but to each his own. By the way, Brahmins are not in power now. Quote:
Never once did I say I want to impose the Vedas on people, you'll see quite the opposite if you care to read my earlier posts. And where in the Vedas is the authority to kill Buddhists and Jains? Is it the Vedas that said that or people? You better be careful with what you say because giving the wrong impression can cause alot of problems. In case you didn't know the man who shot Gandhi claimed he was inspired by the Gita. Now who or what are you going to blame? Nathuram Godse or the Gita? I've said that very few people follow the vedic religion today, but just have a reverance for it. The Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, etc all seem to have a reverance for the Vedas. Too bad if you don't like this. |
||||||
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 01:36 AM
|
#42 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Looks to me as if YOU don't like the fact that Hinduism is nothing but different spiritual paths into one and that not all Hindu sects follow the Vedas. Even Lord Krishna criticized the Vedas but only respected it's higher truth. Although it is clear he said to come straight to him. Too bad you don't like this... |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 02:18 AM
|
#43 | ||
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Look again at what I've said and stop jumping to your pre-conceived conclusions. I'll make it easy for you. The Vedas is hardly studied today, only some Brahmins and Arya Samajis study it. So therefore most Hindus don't follow the Vedas directly. I've said this before but you obviously didn't pay attention. Most Hindu sects that are at least known about follow scriptures derived from the Vedic tradition. But you have a hard time even accepting that the Upanishads are the end portion of the Vedas and are hence Vedic. The schools of thought based on the Upanishads are called Vedanta which means the end or culmination/conclusion of the Vedas. What scholars have noted about Hinduism is it is a complete evolution of a religion. Where the Abrahamic monotheistic religions came from polytheistic Pagan pasts and fought them to the death, Hinduism has managed to evolve comfortably without denying it's past, without declarying holy war on the earlier Vedic religion. As a matter of fact it still has a reverence and respect for the Vedas as can be seen in it's many scriptures. Quote:
So now all of a sudden you're saying Sri Krishna respected the Vedas higher truth, well I see you're changing your tune and now finally we're getting somewhere. Let's see did you know Lord Krishna is believed to be an incarnation of Vishnu? and that Vishnu is first mentioned in, yes you guessed it, the Vedas! Shock horror! Lord Vishnu is a Vedic God! Or do you think that brahmins made that up too? |
||
|
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 02:26 AM
|
#44 | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I never said he didn't respected higher teachings of the Vedas. He also respected the higher teachings of non-vedic sage Kapila as well as non-vedic Jain tradition since he is historically the cousin of 22nd Thirthankar Neminath. However, Lord Krishna criticed those who recited the Vedas as it was for personal gain and he preached people to follow his word in the Gita. So Lord Krishna is niether Vedic nor Sramanic but Universal. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 09:33 AM
|
#45 | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
The impression you have been giving is that he was anti-Vedic, which is why I had to remind you that being an incarnation of Vishnu, who was a God rooted in the Vedas, he was never an Anti-Vedic. He says he is the Gayatri mantra, found in the Vedas. Lord Krishna's teachings were Yogic and Vedanatic and we all know where Vedanta came from. Since Lord Krishna respected the Vedas, maybe you should learn to have some respect too. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 09:33 AM
|
#46 | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 09:35 AM
|
#47 | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
No
Quote:
Too bad you are off. Please do furnish some evidence that Krishna criticized the Vedas, but respected its higher truth...whatever that means. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 12:07 PM
|
#48 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
I don't know why certain people here do not understand what "Hindu" is trying to convey. It's very easy and simple. He was a universal like character that respected many Vedic and non-Vedic teachings. You cannot argue that. If Lord Krishna respected Vedic and Non-Vedic teachings then you gues should respect that too. The Gita has Vedantic teachingsa as well as many Jain concepts and non Vedic concepts. |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 06:48 PM
|
#49 | ||
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
The guy seems to have a chip on his shoulder against the Vedas and Brahmins. Now don't get me wrong there are bad Brahmins and caste system is not a good thing, but I think "Hindu_" is taking his hatred a little too far. He accused me of being some sort of Hindu extremist, which I know is far from the truth. He should understand how Hinduism is constatly evolving, the Hinduism of today is different from the Hinduism 1000 years ago and a 1000 years before that. Quote:
I respect all Hindu teachings as well as Buddhist and Jain. I don't have a problem with any community, I'm saying however that Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs were seen as outside the Hindu fold and are generally regarded as seperate religions (though certain Hindus are trying to absorb them), whereas all the various sects that draw spiritual guidance from Vedic, Puranic texts are regarded as Hindu. And groups that follow the Vedas directly are few and far between. But alot of the texts that Hindus do follow such as the Gita, The Upanishads, Ramayana, Puranas do speak in reverence of the Vedas. If they can have respect for the Vedas then I think he should too. |
||
|
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 10:37 AM
|
#50 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
|
so much confusion for the laity
ॐ भूर् भु॑वः सुवः त॑त् सवितु॑र् व॑रेणियं भ॑र्गो देव॑स्य धीमहि धि॑यो यो॑ नः प्रचोद॑यात् (arial unicode fonts) TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIA RELIGIONS, ONE SHOULD BE MORE WISE THAN A HUMAN BEING. I SUGGEST THAT ALL SHOULD UNITE IN USING ONE MANTRA AND NO OTHER: THE SAAWITRII GAAiATRII. THE SAAWITRII AGREES WITH EVERYBODY, SO BY USING THAT, ALL CAN UNITE. IT IS SAID THAT THE SAAWITRII IS MEANT FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE, AND THAT THERE IS NO MANTRA SUPERIOR TO SAAWITRII. SO, IF YOU WANT TO UNITE, THIS IS THE WAY. "TOGETHER WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL". IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO UNITE, KEEP BEING DIVIDED.
__________________
ॐ कृष्ण महायोगिन् परमाहृदयेश्वर कृष्ण।
http://users.sch.gr/ioakenanid/pronouncingsansqrt.htm http://users.sch.gr/ioakenanid/cd.htm |
|
|
|
03-17-2007, 08:44 PM
|
#51 | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I agree with unity and that the Savitri/Gayatri Mantra is a great Mantra, but our "Hindu" friend here would probably have something against it simply because it's from the Vedas. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-18-2007, 01:47 AM
|
#52 | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Not really. The Vedas has some good teachings no doubt but just because some of it's teachings were added to the Gita/Upanishads does not mean it came from there. It may be Vedic tradition but a lot of the Vedic teachings later down on the line reject the fundamental rituals/sacrifices of the Vedas. Therefore, you need to wake up and smell the incense buddy. How can a philosophy that rejects parts of the collections of the Vedas and accepts some of it be DIRECTLY FROM there? I personally think you are just a follower of the Vedas who is upset that many parts of it were rejected by many religions/spiritual oaths both within Hinduism and outside Hinduism. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-18-2007, 01:26 PM
|
#53 | |||
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Nice name change by the way. So now you agree it's part of the Vedic tradition, that wasn't so painfull was it? Read what I've said before and this time pay attention. Hinduism is an evolving religion. It has evolved from numerous sages who lived at different times, adding to it their spiritual knowledge. Rejecting rituals is part of the the evolution of Hinduism, which didn't totally get rid of it, but kept some of it alive in a new form and kept some rituals for certain occassions that are still relevant for Hindu society (e.g. Marriage). Alot of the rituals of the Vedas are obsolete as they are irrelevant in this day and age. Most people would simply not go through with them. Quote:
Because it learnt to adapt. The Vedic religion was always meant to grow and adapt. It had a philosophical base right from the beginning. It was more concerned with spirituality and dharma. Quote:
Like I've said before there are only a few followers of the Vedas in this world. Some are Brahmins, Srauta tradition and Arya Samaj. Who cares that parts of the Vedas was rejected? I certainly don't. It was probaly for the beter when you consider that Animals were once sacrificed as part of some Vedic rituals. If you must know, I'm a follower of the Gita and Upanishads and to narrow it down further I would say I'm a Vedantist, though I'm also interested in the yoga school. And I would say you jump to conclusions very quickly and judge people too soon without even trying to understand. |
|||
|
|
|
|
03-18-2007, 02:53 PM
|
#54 | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Look I am not a Brahmin or Vedas hater but I will tell you this much, the Upanishadic age/Mahabharata age were a revolt against Brahmin orthodoxy. During this age many Kshatriyas were revolting against Brahmins due to their heavy sacrifices and rituals and their dominance over spirituality. The Brahmins in turn had many wars with Kshatriyas. During the Upanishadic age-Three religions evolved as a revolt against Brahmin Orthodoxy-Jainism, Buddhism, Vaishnavism. All three of these religions believe in the appearance of saviors and fundamental teachings of the Upanishads such as yoga, reincarnation, karma. The difference between Jainism/Buddhism and Vaishnavism was that Vaishnavism specifically believed that Gods comes as Avatar to save humanity while Jainas and Buddhists were Atheistic philosophies that did not believe God can come in human form. Certain sects within Vaishnavism such as the Pancharatras completely rejected Brahmin priests while some such as the Bhagavatas accepted Brahmins and relied on them for their priestly duties. It must again be stated that Vaishnavism originally was a revolt against orthodox Brahminism. It is no doubt, and many Hindus agree with me that the Brahmin class has wholly Brahminized India and played with Hinduism for their own personal gain. This is my problem with them. I have nothing against Brahmins but for this reason.They are not the inventors of Hinduism. If you study Hinduism from ancient times, most people that contributed to Hinduism about 90 percent has been non-Brahmin with the exception of some people like Shankara, Chaitanya, etc... Shankara rejects many parts of Bhagavatism to I can care less. This just goes to show you the amount of dis agreement within Hinduism. Thanks for the compliment about the name change. Thought you might like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-18-2007, 03:19 PM
|
#55 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
|
United We Stand, Divided We Fall!
Yes I Know Some People Reject Parts Of The Veda, Or Most Of The Veda, But I Know Nobody Who Can Be Against The Saavitrii. Everyone Can Use It, Even Materialists And Atheists, Taking Matter As The Creator God. So Using That, All People Can Unite. The Saavitrii Is Supposed To Enlighten The Mind, So Then All People Will Understand The Right Path, And Will Unite On The Right Path.
__________________
ॐ कृष्ण महायोगिन् परमाहृदयेश्वर कृष्ण।
http://users.sch.gr/ioakenanid/pronouncingsansqrt.htm http://users.sch.gr/ioakenanid/cd.htm |
|
|
|
|
03-18-2007, 05:26 PM
|
#56 | ||||
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I would agree with you. Many of the Upanishadic sages were from Kshatriya background. Quote:
I would say that the Upanishads has had a far greater influence on Hinduism than the ritualistic (brahmana) portion of the Vedas. Also wasn't Shaivism around at that time or before? Because the Svetashvatara Upanishad is also regarded as a Shaivite text and an Upanishad. Quote:
Maybe it was, but I don't know much about this Pancharatra sect. I'd like to know more. What philosophy did they follow? Visistadvaita, Bheda-bheda or Dvaita? What age did this sect start? Do they still exist? Quote:
I know that brahmins have messed around with Hinduism as they were given too much power and my concern is really with the human-rights abuses (mainly casteist and against women) that go on in the name of Hinduism introduced by brahmins. I agree it was mainly non-brahmins who contributed to Hinduism but even those brahmins who did many of them were non-casteist, so we shouldn't tar all brahmins with the same brush. |
||||
|
|
|
|
03-18-2007, 06:06 PM
|
#57 | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Well what pisses me off is when people undermine Hinduism-Vaishnavism/Sivaism by claiming that they are Brahminical religions which were invented to destroy Buddhism and Jainism. While it is true that during the Gupta rise the Brahmins gained supreme power and worked with the Rajputs to destroy Jains and Buddhists as well as imposed a strict caste code (Manu Smirti) ,the rest is nothing but anti-Hindu propoganda. There are even some scholars that promote the idea that the Bhagavad Gita was constructed by the Brahmin class as an attempt to weaken Buddhism and assimilate it within so called "Hinduism". Here is a link to one of the teachers/scholars that promote this idea: type in http first fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/gita/[/url] This is such utter crap. For example, most scholars give a date of the Gita sometime between 500-200BC- with some additions in 200 AD. In addition, most scholars give the date of Mahabharata sometime between 500-400 BC with some additions during 200-500AD. It is clear that both the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita were written well before the Brahmins came into power. It is also obvious that Brahmins did tamper with the texts. However, Buddhists texts were not even written until 400 years after Buddha's death.This is admitted by Buddhists themselves. They used a method of recitation-both frontwards and backwards. This was something common among Hindus and Jains as well. So given the date of Buddha's death, his teachings would have been written in Pali sometime in 200 BC. Therefore, if the Gita was written between 500-200BC as accepted date by most scholars, how the hek can it be a way to weaken Buddhism? As for the Puranic stories, these were said to be written sometime between 100-300AD. However, they were written in an earlier form on Prakrit and sang and recited by royal bards much before this. Even Patanjali in his writings which are said to be from 400-200BC, remembers the story of Krishna Vasudeva killing Kamsa as an ancient story.So these stories are not an invention of Brahmin class and Krishna and Rama and other Hindu God's and Goddess's were not created out of myth. This is all utter non sense. Even some Buddhists are promoting this non-sense. That Buddhism was a reaction to Hinduism. There was no such thing as Hinduism back then. Buddha only rejected Brahmin Authority and opened to doors of spirituality to all classes as did the Jains. But there are many instances of Upanishadic sages doing the same thing before Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early Vaishnavas did this as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-19-2007, 09:57 AM
|
#58 |