hindu12

I think as a hindu you should have faith in Hindu institution and follow them otherwise don't call yourself Hindu. The Guru to the Beatles died a few days ago. It was being discussed on an American show called "Real Time Bill Mahr" they were basically making fun of him. Calling him a phony and saying the Beatles should of spent theit time with Mother Theresa, instead. Calling the dumb for getting involved with Hinduism and Indian culture, these people were conservative christian guest. It's no good to true to be allies with people who think you are going to hell. If you are Hindu, you should be helping hinduism progress and spread, because your enemies won't. Jai Swaminarayan

Are you kidding me? The Guru of the Beatles deserved every bad name in the book by the media. I am glad he got exposed. He lived in a 200 room mansion and made millions under the guise of yoga and Hinduism. People like him deserve no respect. The news comments had nothing to do with Hinduism, they were just exposing this fake Guru.

The only person from the Beattles that was really a true Hindu was George Harrison. He was a disciple of Swami Prabhupada and even though he still battled with addiction here and there, his spirituality really helped him become a better person and Swami Prabupada didn't take millions from him.

I am sick of these fake gurus using Hinduism for their own benefits. These selfish people need to be ousted at any given chance. And you are comparing to Mother Theresa? Yea Mother Theresa might have been a Catholic but dare compare some fake Guru to her.

I would say Amma is more like a Hindu Mother Theresa

not so from what reading ive done on the subject of the varna system.was more like a recist pyramid scheme.

what have you been reading? brit propaganda from the 19th century.

there is no evidence what so ever that it was based on race or skin color. most modern scholars reject it.

 

typical propaganda by muslim political groups in india who are using caste as a stool to gain momentum. first off, hinduism does preach fundamental equality. caste in hinduism is based on merit, the current caste system is not a religious issue more then it is a social issue that people use religion to justify.

 

 

muslim converts in india were not lower castes. some were, but many were people who were forced into islam. this is even backed up by credible historians. in fact, even the tribals in india resisted islam and against them invading india.

 

 

lastly, islam teaches equality? you have to be kidding me right? the fundamental basis of islam is inequality of human biengs and it is imbedded within the koran. even dalit activist br ambedkar said that when it comes to inequality - hinduism is a child compared to the social evils in islam and that islam is the biggest propaganda disguising itself under the mask of brotherhood and equality. islam does not teach equality, the only people who are considered equal in islam are people who accept it, which most of the time is by force.

 

ask the millions of people who are dying to leave islam and they are not allowed to.

 

ask the millions of slaves within islam who cannot escape it, their conditions (in sudan etc...) is considered the biggest humanitarian crisis the world knows, even worst then dalits, and we all know how bad dalits have it also.

 

islam recently outlawed slavery about 30 years ago even then forced slavery in islam is still strong as islam is in those countries.

 

non muslims are considered non human and infidels, they are second class citizens and their only reason for living in a muslim country is to either pay taxes and eventually succumb to islam. muhammad asks these people by killed and murdered by islamic law.

 

now thats what you call inequality.

I have never said I was a Hindu. My username comes from Jewish tradition and I have yet to speak against Hindusm in anyway. So, how is it that I could be pretending to do anything when I have never pretended?

really? well then its rather odd that you would make a statement like this to Arjuna Haridas:

Like I said before, I doubt that you are a Hindu. And since you're not, I have nothing further to discuss with a non-Hindu member.

its funny how you accuse others of nieng non hindu when you are not a hindu yourself

I will feel honored to be called an Extremist (for fighting for my rights) than to be called a Muslim's hand licker.

 

If a person who fight for rights are extremists, then Pandavas are extremists.

 

If a person asks others to stand up and fight for their rights are extremists as well, then Sri Krishna is an extremists as well.

well you're not really a hindu, i think you are a non hindu pretending to be a hindu

Arjuna Haridas :

 

 

 

Like I said before, I doubt that you are a Hindu. And since you're not, I have nothing further to discuss with a non-Hindu member.

 

Good day, Sir.

typical response from a hindu extremist

Can we have some Vedic interpretations (of this realization) of "Radha"? Not the Gaudiya interpretation of Radha.

On the other hand I feel, that a lot of Vaishnava shcools are not really based on realizations as in yoga and tantra but more in Vedantic philosophy.

The realization is focused more on staunch belief in the particular line of philosophy that the sadhak is following, rather than the resulting realization from

austerity and practice of such a philosophy. I'm don't mean to say here that the vaishnavas don't have realization. Just most sampradayik preachings focus

more on Vedantic understanding.

 

do you think so? i think vaishnavas focus heavily on puranas- vishnu and bahagavat purana etc...not as much on vedantic philosophy, if not hardly it all.

vedantic philosophy it is also based on realization and yoga dont you agree?

As Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma we had a kind of trimurty in the old times in Europe : Esus, Taranis and Teutates ; 3 major "celtic" gods ruling before the roman and greek civilization took place or better say the Christian civilization. There also where a lot of greek gods before christianity came. And also what about the Egyptian "trimurty" Isis, Osiris and Anubis.

 

I believe that in the old times there were many gods and demi gods all around the world. Then came Christianity which perturbated things maybe, and war religions in the 16th century... I believe that Vishnu is a product of christianity in modern Hinduism (many avatar going on a linear time, from Matsya the fish who saved Jonas in the bible etc...). Hinduism now is based on love and worship of only one god Baghwan. Because you Indians think that Shiva or Vishnu are proceding from one god (Bagwan : they are incarnations of Baghwan) and that Dharma is ruling I think.

Well, I also think Shiva is more ultimate or closer to truth because I think that some coins with the head of Shiva were dicovered in the ancient city of Mohendjodaro in Pakistan or around the Indus Valley. I think Vishnu is fake. Or not fake, but a god with less archeological evidence and issued from the Messiah concept -saver of the world-.

 

The old greek writers (who were not famous because not recognized by Rome and Cotholic empire) like Iamboulos etc... wrote about the greek gods at that time. Iamboulos says that they were kings, from flesh like you and me, ruling at a very old time ; they were fighters, very powerful humans.

 

Well, all this drive me to a question if I may ask in this topic : Could Krishna be Christ-na or something like that... This is something I am wondering as it is said per rumors that Jesus Christ came to India... Maybe Krishna and Christ is the same person... well, I find this similarity in names very weird...

 

Thank you for your attention, hoping not to put the web on fire and hoping to get some response...

 

Regards,

 

Eternity

this is not true. hindus have always regarded vishnu, shiva as one as it is written in the scriptures.

i am sure there were hindus that saw vishnu, shiva as different gods but those were ones that did not read the scriptures or not well versed in them.

vishnu is not fake, vishnu is mentioned in the vedas.

hindus today are basing their beliefs off of vedic/vedantic aspect which believes god is one. while the hindus that worship many gods and believe in different gods are basing their belief off of puranic/mythology aspect which was very popular during the gupta era.

so hindus today who believe god is one etc... are actually following the older version of hinduism then the puranic hindus.

i feel that the puranas were meant to be for morals but people worship the gods in there.

i do agree that vaishnavas have made vishnu/krishna very christian like but the bhagavad gita was written before the bible. krishna was a diety who was originally associated with the upanishadic philosophy (bhagavad gita) and later on he became very messiah like when the puranas were written focusing on his childhood, pastimes.

many say that jesus is a copy cat of krishna. also there were a lot of other saviour types who had similar characteristics as jesus etc....

krishna and jesus are not the same though, there lives are very different from each other except for some similarities. jesus never came to india ether.there is no proof for this what so ever. there is not even any evidence that he existed according to many. plus krishna is mentioned in ancient writings that date back to 4bc before any supposed jesus which concludes that the two cannot be the same.

just because vishnu is acciated with savior type qualities should not make vishnu fake. vishnu/krishna like i said were originally associated with upanishadic philosophy which sees them as infinite and formless. the idea of vishnu incarnating was meant to show how the formless comes to form to put human biengs into the right path but during the gupta era many many puranas were written which focus of human aspect of vishnu/krishna which is more of what hindus today follow then the philosophy.

this is why vaishnavas are more fussy then shaivas because shaivas are closer to the original upanishadic philosophy ( but they also follow some puranas like shiva puranas) and vaishnavas today focus heavily on puranas (not so much upanishads), and half of these puranas claim vishnu is supreme and this and that. if they had followed the upanishads then they would understand that vishnu/shiva are one but because vaishnavas follow the puranas, whic claim vishnu is supreme they don't understand the oness of the two.

and there is actually archeological evidence of vishnu, recently found ancient idols of vishnu in russia, but he was definitely not originally russian diety because the phenotype of the statues are not caucasian in any sense. so this probably means that there was some contact between hindus and russians. there are also vishnu idols found in cambodia etc... too.

As Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma we had a kind of trimurty in the old times in Europe : Esus, Taranis and Teutates ; 3 major "celtic" gods ruling before the roman and greek civilization took place or better say the Christian civilization. There also where a lot of greek gods before christianity came. And also what about the Egyptian "trimurty" Isis, Osiris and Anubis.

 

I believe that in the old times there were many gods and demi gods all around the world. Then came Christianity which perturbated things maybe, and war religions in the 16th century... I believe that Vishnu is a product of christianity in modern Hinduism (many avatar going on a linear time, from Matsya the fish who saved Jonas in the bible etc...). Hinduism now is based on love and worship of only one god Baghwan. Because you Indians think that Shiva or Vishnu are proceding from one god (Bagwan : they are incarnations of Baghwan) and that Dharma is ruling I think.

Well, I also think Shiva is more ultimate or closer to truth because I think that some coins with the head of Shiva were dicovered in the ancient city of Mohendjodaro in Pakistan or around the Indus Valley. I think Vishnu is fake. Or not fake, but a god with less archeological evidence and issued from the Messiah concept -saver of the world-.

 

The old greek writers (who were not famous because not recognized by Rome and Cotholic empire) like Iamboulos etc... wrote about the greek gods at that time. Iamboulos says that they were kings, from flesh like you and me, ruling at a very old time ; they were fighters, very powerful humans.

 

Well, all this drive me to a question if I may ask in this topic : Could Krishna be Christ-na or something like that... This is something I am wondering as it is said per rumors that Jesus Christ came to India... Maybe Krishna and Christ is the same person... well, I find this similarity in names very weird...

 

Thank you for your attention, hoping not to put the web on fire and hoping to get some response...

 

Regards,

 

Eternity

this is not true. hindus have always regarded vishnu, shiva as one as it is written in the scriptures.

i am sure there were hindus that saw vishnu, shiva as different gods but those were ones that did not read the scriptures or not well versed in them.

vishnu is not fake, vishnu is mentioned in the vedas.

hindus today are basing their beliefs off of vedic/vedantic aspect which beliefs god is one. while the hindus that worship many gods and believe in different gods are basing their belief off of puranic/mythology aspect which was very popular during the gupta era.

so hindus today who believe god is one etc... are actually following the older version of hinduism then the puranic hindus.

i feel that the puranas were meant to be for morals but people worship the gods in there.

i do agree that vaishnavas have made vishnu/krishna very christian like but the bhagavad gita was written before the bible. krishna was a diety who was originally associated with the upanishadic philosophy and later on he became very messiah like. but many say that jesus is a copy cat of krishna. also there were a lot of other saviour types who had similar characteristics as jesus etc....

krishna and jesus are not the same though, there lies are very different from each other except for some similarities.

jesus never came to india. there is not even any evidence that he existed according to many. plus krishna is mentioned in ancient writings that date back to 4bc before any supposed jesus.

As Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma we had a kind of trimurty in the old times in Europe : Esus, Taranis and Teutates ; 3 major "celtic" gods ruling before the roman and greek civilization took place or better say the Christian civilization. There also where a lot of greek gods before christianity came. And also what about the Egyptian "trimurty" Isis, Osiris and Anubis.

 

I believe that in the old times there were many gods and demi gods all around the world. Then came Christianity which perturbated things maybe, and war religions in the 16th century... I believe that Vishnu is a product of christianity in modern Hinduism (many avatar going on a linear time, from Matsya the fish who saved Jonas in the bible etc...). Hinduism now is based on love and worship of only one god Baghwan. Because you Indians think that Shiva or Vishnu are proceding from one god (Bagwan : they are incarnations of Baghwan) and that Dharma is ruling I think.

Well, I also think Shiva is more ultimate or closer to truth because I think that some coins with the head of Shiva were dicovered in the ancient city of Mohendjodaro in Pakistan or around the Indus Valley. I think Vishnu is fake. Or not fake, but a god with less archeological evidence and issued from the Messiah concept -saver of the world-.

 

The old greek writers (who were not famous because not recognized by Rome and Cotholic empire) like Iamboulos etc... wrote about the greek gods at that time. Iamboulos says that they were kings, from flesh like you and me, ruling at a very old time ; they were fighters, very powerful humans.

 

Well, all this drive me to a question if I may ask in this topic : Could Krishna be Christ-na or something like that... This is something I am wondering as it is said per rumors that Jesus Christ came to India... Maybe Krishna and Christ is the same person... well, I find this similarity in names very weird...

 

Thank you for your attention, hoping not to put the web on fire and hoping to get some response...

 

Regards,

 

Eternity

this is not true. hindus have always regarded vishnu, shiva as one as it is written in the scriptures.

i am sure there were hindus that saw vishnu, shiva as different gods but those were ones that did not read the scriptures or not well versed in them.

vishnu is not fake, vishnu is mentioned in the vedas.

hindus today are basing their beliefs off of vedic/vedantic aspect which believes god is one. while the hindus that worship many gods and believe in different gods are basing their belief off of puranic/mythology aspect which was very popular during the gupta era.

so hindus today who believe god is one etc... are actually following the older version of hinduism then the puranic hindus.

i feel that the puranas were meant to be for morals but people worship the gods in there literally.

Yes, Shiva purana is Tamasic. Refer Padma purana for this.

padma purana is not authentic though

Vishnu is Vedic god

Shiva is pre-vedic God

 

Shiva - Muruga are the basic deity of Tamils which is the mother of all the south indian languages and historian says that there was a Lemooria continent which was in Pacific ocean(now submerged) where the language spoken was Tamil.

 

You can see lots of historic tamil scholars (eg. Nakkeeran, Tholkappiars) verses on Shiva and Lord Muruga.

 

Thats why you find lots of shiva temple in the south where the predominant religion is Saivam - whereas north indian adopt Vedic gods - mostly Vishnu.

 

It is not important which god one worship - as long as they dont interfere in other believers.

 

Kind of MF Husain paintings, this Hindu gods worshippings Buddha depiction are uncalledfor and not in good taste.

 

You see, relegion preaches non-violence - whereas most of the war in history are for establishing a religion.

 

Budhdha preached Love and Ahimsa - but you see the countries where Budhdha is worshiped now - Japan, China etc - they kill everything and eat - thats how they have understood buddhas philosophy.

 

Thanks & regards

vmsunder

again another crock of bs

vishnu and shiva (rudra) are both mentioned in the vedas.

Veda vyasa had compiled vedas in kaliyuga for sake of mankind and he himself quoted clearly that shiva-purana is tamasic. It only shows your ignorance of telling that "Veda-vyasa" doesnt know meaning of vedas.

another bs. ved vyasa did not call shiva purana tamasic.

It doesn't hail Lord Narasimha. Would it make sense if I said:

 

"Praise be to Lord Ganesha!

Ganapati

The Supreme Remover of Obstacles

To Agni I bow!"

 

No, it wouldn't. Shri Rudram Chamakam is clearly directed to Rudra, and it is the source of the beautiful "Om Namah Shivaya" mantra.

 

 

<dl><dd>namo bhavāya ca rudrāya ca namaḥ śarvāya ca paśupataye ca</dd><dd>namo nīlagrīvāya ca śitikaṇṭhāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ kapardine ca vyuptakeshāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ sahasrākṣāya cha śatadhanvane ca</dd><dd>namo giriśāya ca śipiviṣṭāya ca</dd></dl>The meaning is here: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/shri_rudram/shri_rudram_top.htm

 

By reading the meaning, you can see that it is obviously adressed to Rudra. Let me tell you that Rudra is a Form of Shiva, and that Rudra is the God of Destruction. "Shiva" is simply the Name given to Brahman in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad. So, it would make more sense if I called Shiva "Brahman", as many get "Shiva" mixed up with Rudra.

 

So if you were to ask me to "prove" that Shiva is Supreme, then I'll just point you to the Vedas in which the Supreme is called "Brahman" and then I'll point you to the Shvestashvatara Upanishad where "Brahman" is called "Shiva". And yes, the Shvestashvatara Upanishad is authentic; ask any non-sectarian Hindu.

 

 

 

I was trying to prove a point. The fact that the Vedas states that the Supreme Gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) are just forms of One God (Brahman, as stated in the Vedas) vs. the Bhagavata Purana and such claiming that Krishna and Vishnu are Supreme (interchangably) would show that Vedavyasa doesn't know the books that he compiled (the Vedas). This is saying that the Vedas are the Truth and are to be taken before Puranas; any guru will tell you this.

 

And who decides which Purana is "Sattvika", "Rajasika", and "Tamasika"? The Vaishnava scholar, of course. Where does he base this off of? Not the Bhagavad Gita, nor any Upanishad, nor any epic, nor even the Vedas. However, he takes this from the Padma Purana; the same Purana which states that one can commit sin in the name of Vishnu in and it will be a pious deed.

you are right on it!

With all respect to you-

Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva cannot be one. Why does it say vaishnavanam yatha sambuh- Lord Shiva is the greatest Vaishnava? It is like milk and yogurt. Yogurt is the transformed form of milk. Milk can become yogurt but yogurt can not become milk. I hope you see greatness in the servant also. Lord Shiva is the greatest of all Vaishnavas. He is respected from lowly people such as the ghosts and demons to high Vaishnavas. All glories to Lord Shiva the greatest Vaishnava who is known as Gopishwar Mahadeva. If Lord Shiva gives me one drop of his mercy I will consider myself extremely fortunate.

this is what i meant when i said its a shame that people havent grasped vedism. they are one the vedic text say all a part of supreme reality. they are just different forms.vishnu is infinite and so is shiva. it doesnt take a scientist to grasp this concept.

vmsunder

your claims are a load of bs. the dravidian aryan theory has no basis. they are language groups not races. the aryan theory was a british theory so you might as well just stop promoting your non sense here.

plus according to the so called aryan theorists, vishnu and krishna are "non aryan" gods which would refute your entire claim.plus vaishnava theology has had much popularity among the tamils and they along with vedic gods are mentioned in sacred tamil epics which date to 200 bc.

vaishnavas and shaivas form a complete whole with their roots from the same culture in india.there is no racial difference between the two sects.

Vishnu and "Shiva" (Rudra, the Destroyer God) are just two different forms of Brahman (Whom the Shaivas call "Shiva" and the Vaishnavas call "Narayana").

unfortunately, majority of these people have failed the entire teaching of vedic religion. thank you for confirming maybe they can learn from you or maybe they wont and will be too busy debating rather then following vedic religion

it is absolutely a shame that all of these debaters since historical times have never grasped what the Vedic religion taught- there is no difference between shiva and vishnu. they are one.and you have their very incarnations here on this board who dont understand their own scriptures and religion either and spend hours of their time debating like little babies.

Guest... please conduct ur research into Vedic Culture properly. Your absurd claim that the Vedas were written by the Brahmins is absoloutely incorrect. The Vedas were directly emnated by the Lord.. and out of Srila Vysadeva's mercy he compiled the Vedas into written form for our benefit.

actually I was guest and i had a lot of anger by reading many things that were written by anti-hindu sites. it wasn't until i did proper research did i find that the truth.

you are right the vedas were from God and caste was flexible society back then.

i have apologized earlier for my remarks. and i want to come out in the open for showing what an idiot I was. I hope those who had my views can learn that Hinduism is not what the anti-hindus make it seem.

the caste system is not a part of hinduism it is a malfunction by greedy people. all religions have problems. I have realizing that blaming Hinduism is wrong as it does not support this.

Sikhs believe that Rama is one name of God. But they do not believe that Ramachandra was God. According to them the only similarity between Rama(God) and king Rama(son of Dashrath) is that they have same names. But similarity ends here. Suppose my neighbours name is Rama. His name is Rama but he is not God. Likewise Sikhs say that Rama is one name of God but this Rama is not the same as son of Dashrath. According to Sikhs, son of Dashrath was an ordinary human being just like my neighbour is an ordinary human being. Sikhs believe God never incarnates. They believe God is formless.

 

It is true that most Hindus believe Rama and Krishna to be God incarnates and also the supreme Truth. But Sikhs do not believe in incarnation.

ohh ok well that makes sense

There is a difference. Hindus say that Ramachandra was human but not ordinary human; rather God who incarnated as human.

According to Sikhs, Ramachandra is just ordinary human (no incarnation). Let me give an analogy. At present there are many people with names Rama, Gopala, Krishna etc. We do not consider them as God. Likewise Sikhs do not consider Ramachandra as God.

I still dont get it. So they just use the names Rama and Krishna but dont consider it a name for God? Why would you use those names?

Also, most Hindus I know believe Rama and Krishna to be God incarnates but also the eternal supreme Truth that is omnipresent and resided within you.

Sikhs use the word Rama in both senses. In some verses in Guru Granth Sahib, Rama has been used to mean king Rama (son of Dashrath). But here Rama is not glorified; rather he has been treated as a human being.

 

In some other verses Rama is used to mean God i.e. Supreme. But this Rama is different from Ramachandra(son of Dashrath).

but dont hindus do the same thing?

One example of name Rama existing before Ramachandra is Parashu Rama.

Hindus say that Ramachandra was the son of Dashrath. They also use name Rama to mean God. They say that both are same in the sense that God incarnated on Earth as Ramachandra. Likewise Krishna is God and also Krishna is son of Vasudev and Devki. Hindus say that both Krishna's mean the same.

 

But when Sikhs talk about Ramachandra(Dashrath's son) and Krishna(Vasudev's son), then they mean ordinary human beings. When they use the names Rama and Krishna to refer to God, then they mean the Supreme, who is different from Dashrath's son and Vasudev's son.

so hindus use the name Rama Krishna for who they are and the supreme whole Sikhs only use it for thr supreme?

The name Rama definitely existed even before Lord Rama(son of Kaushalya) was born. But let us see what Sikhs believe.

Sikhs use the words Rama, Krishna etc. to refer to God. But by Rama, Krishna, they do not mean Rama, Krishna who incarnated as human beings. By these words, they simply mean God just like we use words like Bhagvan, Ishvar, Parmatma etc. to refer to God.

Sikhs do not believe in incarnation.

hindus believe the same thing though, rama and krishna are names for God who is omnipresent

and can you give me more insight on the name Rama existing before Ramachandra

I had some questions about Sikhism if anyone here can answer would be great.

I had read some where that Hindu concepts and Hindu God's appear in the Guru Granth Sahib over 15,000 times.

When I go to Sikh sites and read some of what they talk about in reference to Hindu terms and God's the Sikhs say that they are not the same thing as in Hinduism. But how can someone use the term Krishna, Shiv, Durga but not actually mean Krishna, Shiv, or Durga? Like for example, how can a religion say they believe in Jesus, Moses as names for the divine but not actually mean Jesus, Moses but something else. It sounds a bit strange.

Some of them also say that books like Ramayana and Mahabharata are fiction and myth and Sikhism is a practical religion but then why do Sikh Gurus use stories from these books? The Sikhs are saying that Gurus did not mean the same thing as in Hinduism but I don't get what's the difference?

Some are even saying that the name for Hindu Gods like Ram and Shiva existed before Rama and Shiva and that Rama means Moon and Shiva means power and are completely different from Hinduism. So I guess now Sikhs chant Rama for moon God and not Rama. Can some one confirm from scholars that Rama existed before Ramachandra? and that Shiva only means power. They also say Hari only means God and is not accosiated with Vishnu and never was but I have found no reference in the history of India that the name Hari was ever seperate from Vishnu.

If someone here can give me scholarly reference would be nice thanks.

First let me make something very clear for you and I hope all the so called Brahmins by birth will read this. These people are NOT Brahmin. Don't ever see these poeple as Brahmins, these are greedy, selfish , self centered creatures who are only carrying the name of Brahmin. These people love to brag and tell everyone they are Brahmin and they look down upon others. These people are NOT Hindu, they are only following a culture a Brahmin culture which they made up on their own along the way. Most people in India are no longer following Vedic culture. Hinduism was lost many a thousand years ago. Hinduism is no longer there, only small pockets of Hindu gurus and teachers are fighting to keep the religion alive, hanging on every breath to save Vedic culture from the leeches *(so called Brahmins) that have ruined Indian society.

 

So before you go any further you must get into your head these people are not Brahmin. In every Hindu scripture, it says only qualities of a person makes one a Brahmin. It is only the behavior.

 

You don't believe me I will list for you and you can look at Hindu scripture yourself.

 

Truth

 

Charity

 

Forgiveness

 

Benevolence

 

Benignity

 

Kindness

 

Study of Vedic scripture

 

Buddha also defined Brahmin based on qualities.

 

Now you tell me if your boss is a Brahmin or a leech.

The biggest problem is our soceity is the fact that everyne calls these people Brahmins. Even those that hate them still call them Brahmins. Thje more you people continue to call these people Brahmins you are only giving them what they want which is to carry a name so they can continue to have power, ego and brag. The first step is to completely stop calling these poeple Brahmins. Then they will realize that they no longer desrve the respect they demand from society under the guise of their caste.

So i urge you not to refer to him or any birth Brahmin as Brahmin, and if they call themselves Brahmin and Hindu you can just laugh in their face, let them have their little dreams inside their head. Sooner or later they will realize that no one cares about their so called caste and this is how you will create true Vedic culture and all the leeches who call themselves Brahmins will no longer do so in the name of the their filthy caste system, which is shows no support in Hindu scripture.