hindu12

Well actually this may not be myth. This is a tribal practice that still goes on in parts of India.Polyandry was not widespread, but was not uncommon in past. You have to remember, Hinduism itself grew out of a mixture of tribal and aryan practices.

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.

m any believe uttara kanada was a later interpolation and not a part of the original ramayana. scholars agree with this also because it contradicts parts of the other books. this is also the chapter where rama kills a sudra named shambuka for doing penances and also abandons sita due to her impurity.

You are correct and in fact the puranas were written much later then all the other hindu texts. much later. some Puranas carry racism also or skin color bias and sexual content. but i think this is due to some fair skin north indians, by the time puranas were written there were considerable amount of people from outside (iran, turks, greeks) pouring into india. i dont believe in that aryan race stuff which is british invention. but in the south indian puranas goddess parvati is considered black and beautiful so i think this is a north indian thing. but not all puranas are bad. the thing is, the puranas have many good ancient stories and fables passed down from many generations, but i agree they have been altered. the best thing is to read vedas, vedanata, gita and mahabharata and ramayana.

this i agree with you but i am just wondering why these things are also said. i know the puranas are written much later thn the other epics so maybe it was society?

Why is there some stories about Black complexion bieng bad? And story about Parvati changing her Black complexion to become fair for Shiva? Why is Shiva ridiculed in some of the Puranas? In the Vishnu Purana it says that the race of Nishadas are short stature, Black complexion and dwarf like stature and are very ugly. What is the significance of this?

In the Mahabharata it says twice, that Karna was the greatest arhcer ever known.

you guys are right, i was bieng biased and pushing conspiracy theories and i feel bad about it. my research has been biased.

Number 2 and Niranjan, i have realized i was wrong. i was reading too many biased things written by marxists. hinduism is a defined vedic religion since ancient times and always has been, but i do still see them as closely related to buddhism and jainism but these religions are athiest and hinduism is not. sikhism, in my opinion indirectly praises the vedas but i dont think they really acknowledge it. the bhaktis were all vedic and praised the vedic scriptures but some did question the vedas,probably due to brahmin supremacy during those times. the vedic scriptures are the greatest scriptures ever written. they speak of one truth. the bhagavatas and pancharatras may have been non vedic in origin but there is no proof of this and their scriptures are clearly vedic.

thank you

Well it seems to be as if this whole talk of Jesus's matches exactly that of Buddha's life and philosophy. I personally think it may have been a hoax by Buddhist priests but who I am to know.

I think the problem is the westerners have given very little attention to Hinduism as much as they did with Buddhism and Taoism and other religions of the far east. Therefore, Hinduism is hardly taken seriously. From all the books I have read regarding the historicity of Krishna, I Sri Aurobindo explains it the best as it matches closely to what I have read... "The historicity of Krishna is of less spiritual importance and is not essential, but it has still a considerable value. It does not seem to me that there can be any reasonable doubt that Krishna the man was not a legend or a poetic invention but actually existed upon earth and played a part in the Indian past. Two facts emerge clearly, that he was regarded as an important spiritual figure, one whose spiritual illumination was recorded in one of the Upanishads, and that he was traditionally regarded as a divine man, one worshipped after his death as a deity; this is apart from the story in the Mahabharata and the Puranas. There is no reason to suppose that the connection of his name with the development of the Bhagavata religion, an important current in the stream of Indian spirituality , was founded on a mere legend or poetic invention. The Mahabharata is a poem and not history , but it is clearly a poem founded on a great historical event, traditionally preserved in memory; some of the figures connected with it, Dhritarashtra, Parikshit, for instance, certainly existed and the story of the part played by Krishna as leader, warrior and statesman can be accepted as probable in itself and to all appearance founded on a tradition which can be given a historical value and has not the air of a myth or a sheer poetical invention. That is as much as can be positively said from the point of view of the theoretical reason as to the historic figure of the man Krishna; but in my view there is much more than that in it and I have always regarded the incarnation as a fact and accepted the historicity of Krishna as I accept the historicity of Christ. II The Krishna consciousness is a reality, but if there were no Krishna, there could be no Krishna consciousness; except in arbitrary metaphysical abstractions there can be no consciousness without a Being who is conscious. It is the person who gives value and reality to the personality , he expresses himself in it and is not constituted by it. Krishna is a being, a person and it is as the Divine Person that we meet him, hear his voice, speak with him and feel his presence. To speak of the consciousness of Krishna as something separate from Krishna is an error of the mind, which is always separating the inseparable and which also tends to regard the impersonal, because it is abstract, as greater, more real and more enduring than the person. Such divisions may be useful to the mind for its own purposes, but it is not the real truth; in the real truth the being or person and its impersonality or state of being are one reality."

Almost all historians and scholars believe Krishna was a historical person. His historicity is just as much as valid as Buddha's. I am sure you read my previous posts regarding the various birth dates regarding Buddha. Therefore, why wouldn't they believe he existed?

Why do they not mention Hinduism in any of the articles or documentaries that I have read. They only mentioned Buddha and Buddhism. In fact, the only mention of Hinduism that I have seen was when Jesus came in contact with the upper castes Hindus whom he fiercl;y fought with about abusing the lower castes. So how did he learn from Hinduism? Can you please provide more information.

The problem I have are these crappy Hindu leaders who shove their Brahminic ideology onto every Hindu including minorities. There has not been one good Hindu leader in India. One that has been fair. Look at Nepal-when it was a Hindu state the disgusting Hindu Kings asked everyone to worship them. They enforced a STRICT caste system where millions suffered under the hands of upper castes. Not to mention they displaced many many people from owning land and were systematically shoving upper caste land owners to take their place under Hindu regime. Many people lost their homes and lived in poverty. These people became untouchables in Nepal. Nepal has the worst case of human trafficking, poverty and suffering of human biengs with no equal rights under Hindu law. This type of stuff gives Hinduism a bad name. What kind of Hindu land is this? People need to wake up. Hinduism is going to see it's downfall sooner or later if we do not wake up and start taking our religion a bit more seriously by living by it. Lord Krishna says in the Gita that he set up varna based on qualification not birth or color or race. This is done for the purpose to run an effective society where everyone puts in their share in creating a balanced society and devoting themselves to God. How can this be done? All Hindu kids (boys and girls) are to be raised with equal standing. Schools where they are tought values, scriptures and importance of bieng a good human bieng. They are to be trained in many subjects and sports and more. After they are done schooling they are to take up their respective jobs. They are to devote themselves to their family, God, and their jobs. There should be no restriction of people mingling, dining or sharing and living together as these are not supported by scriptures. Lord Krishna specifically said all human biengs and all living entities are to be seen with an equal eye. He also said he must do selfless service. So this would make our job to help those who suffer. This is real Hindu law. What these Hindus are doing is not Hindu. Brahmins misused this. They brought in so many inhumane practices and superstiitions. Now they are paying the price for it. Now we all have to suffer because of them. This is what makes me mad and upset.

Actually I am not bieng biased because I was not the first one to make such a comment. I do not follow the Ramayana so you cannot tell me I am not Hindu. I follow other scriptures. Hinduism consists of many different scriptures. Again, this thread is about the different variations of the Ramayana. I never said you are wrong about what you believe. You are right in your own sense but that's only because you are Hindu is what I meant to say. Also, you keep refering to the "original" Ramayana as if the Hindu version bt Valmiki is right and all others are not. We do not know which is right or wrong version. For Hindus Valmiki is the original for others it is different versions. There is no right and wrong other then what percieves. On the other hand, I do respect the fact that you have total faith in Lord Rama's divinity and you believe in the Valmik Ramayana.

Again, your bieng biased because you're Hindu. You are giving your interpretation. Which is fine! But you refuse to see the other side. If you cannot be open to other perspectives then you shouldn't be on this thread discussing the various versions of the Ramayana. You seem like you have an orthodox view. Just stick with your view. It's all about perception. I personally don't agree with a word you said. You are speaking from a Hindu point of view and you refure to understand that the Jain version of thw Ramayana is from a Jain perspective and Buddhist one from a Buddhist perspective and so forth. You feel your version is right but others feel their version is right.

I forgot to add one major point... Buddha is supposed to have lived 500 years before Jesus.

Also, I forgot to mention that many also believe this to be a hoax by Buddhist priests to present the lost life of Jesus in their records. Also, notice how Jesus's entire life story matches exactly that of Buddha's. From his teachings on life and his love for the poor to his rejection of Brahmin caste burdens and rituals. Could Jesus and Buddha have been the same person? hmmm interesting.

I have seen documentaries on this before. What astonishes me is that they do not mention any Hindu or influences or Hinduism (Krishna who is older then Jesus) it all. Yet they mention Buddhism and Buddha. Not to mention, they say that Jesus went to India and fiercly argued with the Brahmins about the caste system and lower classes loved him because he spend a lot of time with them and stood up for them.

Brother, One does not need to directly imply about bieng high or low but just echo it in their very post. Let me tell you a few things just in case youdid not know. From my understanding and as I have read carefully,this thread is about people sharing the different versions and stories of the Ramayana thoughout South EAST Asia where these different versions mainly exist. I posted the Jsin version of the Ramayana and shared their views. You came and decided to get on my case by implying that Jains do not believe in God therefore they know nothing of Rama. How pathetic and low of you. That is their version and one should respect it. They can also say the same thing about your version? Have you even researched the many Ramayanas? There are a few different versions that exist. No one knows which is the true or not. Even Valmikis Ramayana has been altered from ancient times. The point is not which is the right or wrong version but the stories that are contained within that one can apply to their life to advance spiritually. You are a Hindu, obviously you are going to think all other versions are not right and only Valmikis. Other wise you would be a Jain. I personally do not know which is the right or wrong version as I do not follow the Ramayana but I do enjoy reading it and I respect all versions and hold them sacred. Jains do not believe in God which is why Rama is not God. Hindus (generally) believe that Vishnu incarnates as human form to spread Dharma therfore their version of the Ramayana Rama is an incarnation. The Buddhist version also differs. This is not about right or wrong but you clearly came here and boasted and whined enough only because you did not agree with their version. Let it be and let others enjoy this thread for what it is SUPPOSED to be- sharing stories of the different versions of the Ramayanas and appreciating it.

That doesn't mean anything. They don't view Ram or Krishna as God but as heroes and laymen. That is their perception of the story. Why do you have a problem with that? What do you know about Rama? Are you implying you are higher then a Jain because you think you know Rama? Get a life.

?? What are you implying?

In the Jain version of the Ramayana, it was Lakshman who killed Ravana and not Rama. Rama is said to have attained Moskha for his non-violence. Also, I believe in the Thai version of the Ramayana, it is Sita they see as the embodiment of the ultimate woman. A strong a pious woman. It is her they revere and not Rama and Lakshman so much.

No one is "bashing" Brahmins here. Please don't be so sensitive. People don't enjoy talking about Brahmins. We are just speaking of the realities in the world we live in and unfortunately Brahmins haven't been the greatest in terms of equality as well as corrupting certain aspects of Hinduism. Muslims and Christians are equally as responsible but they are external and the damage from Brahmins is within. This does not mean ALL Brahmins are bad. But unfortunately, in my opinion the "bad" is on the larger end.