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.

i work of a company where my manager is a brahmin. He has given lot of abroad offers to brahmins only, he has given promotions and more salary hike to brahmins only. if any bodys name ends with iyer and iyengar he will be happy to meet him and do all the favours.

 

My specific case I am an software programmer I am performing equally well with all other brahmins but for me no promotions no salary hike nor no abroad offers.. why is this biasness...

 

will a brahmin get reward in the heven if he helps other brahmins alone?

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.

Thanks a million. So, Valmiki Ramayan Uttar Kand says that Lanks was built by Vishwakarma for Rakshasas.

But, in a few places in Internet, I read that it was made for Lord Shiva. But those pages do not cite the source.

Is there any scripture(e.g. some Purana), which says that Vishwakarma made Lanka for Lord Shiva?

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.

Originally the alphabets (letters) was not used as a mode of communication, so the puranas were carried by people by heart and passed on to the next generation.

 

So there were many versions of puranas and many puranas carry same story with different interepretaions

 

With different and contradictory includes by the people based on their mindset and social encounters and experiences.

 

So you may see many puranas sometime carry even filthy languages and unimaginable relationships - which surely depicts the mind set of person/persons through whom it came to us.

 

Many people who identified with a particular religion pasted and altered stories in praise of the lord they worship. Thats the reason you find Lord Shiva shown in bad light in some puranas.

 

If one argues that puranas were never got altered then the taste and nature of Vyasa himself needs to be looked into deeply - going by the kind of depiction of many events in the Puranas.

 

If they are Vyasa's original versions - then it cant contradict - there can not be two truths - the very fact of contraditing events denotes the fault at either Vyasa's side or at people who carried it to us.

 

If one seriously reads all the Eighteen puranas he/she may even turn out to be an athiest.

 

So dont read all the puranas - infact dont read them at all and read only life histories and stories of devotees who reached god by their devotion.

 

Thanks & regards

vm sunder

 

<!-- / message -->

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.

Actually, black complexion is praised in the epics. Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Arjuna, Abhimanyu, Nakula, Draupadi, Damayanti ,veda vyasa and many others are described to be blackskinned.

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?

I made those points just because some people were just sticked to their baised views that Karna was not a good archer just because he sided with Duryodhana. But, they treat Beeshma in a different way just because he supported Duryodhana only for Hastinapur. Don't forget that he had taken a oath in the same way even Karna had taken a oath of friendship.

 

It is agreed that it is a God's lila but there is nothing great of Arjuna that he pretend to be egoistic etc.. Those people of that time were just like us almost same feelings and same emotions. It is obvious that we may not be bad but still for a fraction of second we can be egoistic to some extent.

 

Geeta was revealed to all who were present in that War. Everyone saw the Virat Swaroopa of Sri Krishna. Geeta was told so that those who were present in that war after hearing Geeta can decide whether to side with Dharma or Adharma but as many of them were under oath or selfishness avoid the sacred Geeta. There are many people who own Geeta or consider themselves to be the Authorized to twist and turn Dharmic religion do commit mistakes and to some extent sometime or the other become egoistic for a fraction of second. Like some Priest who don't allow Dalits to enter into Temple because of their ego then even Geeta is not for those priest.

 

Geeta is actually a Code of Conduct it is upto an individual whether he wants to follow these Code of Conduct to side with Dharma or not. In the same way Bible and Koran are Code of Conducts They just say what to do and what not to do, they are not a capitalist agreement or communist whip which compel people what have to do. Those who follow it will learn good things and lead a good life or a good death those who don't want to follow it is left upto them. What Arjuna did was that he followed Geeta. Whereas some of them agreed to some of it's ideaology and not of them rejected it entirey like Duryodhana.

 

Even if Karna would have come under dharmic flag then even he would have been the first candidate whom Sri Krishna would have supported and reveal Geeta. Sri Krishna knew that though Arjuna was good in War but he could not plan a strategy but it was also a fact that in Pandavas camp only he was the one who have the capability to win a war that means even if other Pandavas wer killed then Sri Krishna would have still won the war if Arjuna was Alive. That means Hands of Arjuna and Brain of Sri Krishna would have made them to restore Dharmic Empire But if Karna would have supported Dharmic flag then Sri Krishna would not had required any of the Pandavas. Both Sri Krishna and Karna would have won the war single handedly with even major strategies also they would have spreaded dharmic empire thoughout the globe in Arabia and even in Rome to the conturies where a warrior can ever thing of. It would have been strongest conquest in the history of Mankind.

 

Sri Krishna never sided with just Arjuna, He belongs to everyone and everyone belongs to him. The main objective of that war was to bring entire subcontinent under one flag of Dharma.

 

Baised views were given against Karna only because he was an adopted son of a Charioteer or a discard son (Najaeez Aulad) of Kunti. Even today to some extent we differentiate people on the bases of their birth.

 

Imagine what would have happened if Pandavas had excepted Karna as a Friend leaving aside their Baises againts a Charioteer Son. Even Karna would have fought against Duryodhana.

 

Today most of the Backward Class people indentify themselves with Karna. If equal respect is given to them then even they can help in Strengthening Dharmic religion as a whole.

 

Instead of supporting people like Duryodhana they will give blind support and loyalty to Dharmic Religion.

 

Take this prediction "The things that were not able to be accomplished by the Upper caste can be done by Lower caste. They will spread our Ancient Indian Dharmic culture throughout the world. This time these Karnas will give blind support to Hinduism instead of Duryodhana. They will get respect which the truely deserve. Each and every single low caste person whom these higher caste consider as Dalit with disrespect will be the only one who will spread Hinduism."

 

My point for including Ramanayana was that when Sri Rama himself praised the valour and knowleged of Ravana inspite of Ravana being an enemy then why some orthodox people don't even want to think that even Karna was a great archer. Inpsite of knowing many thing about Ramanayana and Mahabharata nobody understood anything. For some it is just a Mythology a Magic show.

 

If you consider Dharma as Duties. If you look in that prespective then everyone in that war were following Dharma.

 

But if you consider Dharma as righteous Duty. Only then you understand who actually followed Dharma.

 

Even Sri Krishna wanted to bring Karna under Dharmic Flag but it was too late, karna was already indebt to Duryodhana. Sri Krishna inspite of being our Great Great Grandfather and our God was not like us he gave what Karna deserved. He gave him death in the battle field like a Warrior and also didn't allowed Arjuna to be the best Archer infront of Karna. For supporting Dharma Sri Krishna gave Arjuna victory and his friendship and support.

 

If Karna was not a Greatest Archer then Kunti would not had feared that Karna could kill Arjuna infact should would have asked Arjuna not to kill Karna and forgive him. Now for this some might say that Kunti did not wanted to reveal her past to Arjuna but how can she gaurantee that if she reveals the story to Karna then he might not spread it to others, the risk of her past been revealed was equal in both the cases. She was very well aware that only Karna can defeat Arjuna and Arjuna by no means can defeat Karna without the help of Sri Krishna. The reason why she went to Karna and revealed her relation with Karna was to Demoralize Karna. That is what happened the hatred against Pandavas became less and karna became more lienient towards Pandavas.

 

No, In reality the conclusion of war was the VICTORY OF DHARMA and not just Dharma or Victory.

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.

Go through the books I have mentioned. You will get what you need.

 

Jesus stated " I and my Father are one."

 

This is similar to the Upanishadic teaching Aham Brahmasmi, meaning "I am He."

thank you

All this talk about Jesus in India is pure speculation. The gnostic gospels is probably closer to Jesus's original teachings. The church today is quite different from the early church just after Jesus's life which proably tuaght his true teachings.

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.

All this talk about Jesus in India is pure speculation. The gnostic gospels is probably closer to Jesus's original teachings. The church today is quite different from the early church just after Jesus's life which proably tuaght his true teachings.

 

hindu12, the reason they don't mention Krishna is probably becasue they don't believe he existed, so they don't take him or his teachings seriously, whereas they do believe in Buddha.

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?

It is noteworthy that the Bible makes no mention of Jesus Christ between the ages of 18 to 30 . Jesus Christ lived in India between the ages of 18 to 30 .

After crucifixion , he returned back to India where he lived in Kashmir till his death .

This has been said by the Indian spiritual masters Paramahamsa Yogananda , Satya Sai Baba and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.

Jesus's teaching of chastity, non-violence, and renunciation were derived from Hinduism, Buddhism and Yoga.

 

The proof for this can be obtained from the books 'Jesus lived in India', written by a team of Western scholars and archaeologists and ' Hinduism and Christianity' by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar( the founder of the Art of Living Foundation).

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.

certainely dalits and low castes were oppressed for years by upper castes. if we look at the land holdings in the indian villages most of the land is in the name of upper caste people. low case people are oppressed till date,institutions like ISKCON and his divine grace Prabhupada swami has done a remarkable work to remove this caste system. now whole of the brahmins and upper caste community should feel sorry for what has been done in past , low caste people should be given their dye credit. all the serveys by indian organisations clearly speak that there is still maximum infant mortility, mother mortality and poverty among the SCs and STs. even after 50 years of independence they are still dying of hunger. Swami Vivekananda's mission is not fullfilled, so let us all brahmins and upper caste people pledge to provide them their due share and show the world that we hindus have no differences on caste basis.

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.

Well thats again your opinion. Im just stating that the original is the VAlmiki Ramayan and all comes from there. You not understanding such shows your too biased as if you fail to not sgree wit hsuch then you are not a hindu. For if you did you would at least agree to it. Im not saying that other Ramayan versions are blasphemous etc. When did i state that im not open to what the Jains follow. Its in fact the opposote i like to learn what they follow. Each to their own.. But what im simply stating is that JAIns will not follow the original Ramayan due to this reason. i mean why cant you understand such a fact??

Others can feel what they like. Whichever version they think may be right, but the Ramayan was originally written by Hanumanji and Valmiki only. I dont agree wit ha word you said either.

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.

They all come from Valmiki rishis Ramayan.This Rishi as well as HAnumanji was the only author of Bhagwan Raams works. The ones that have appeared later are form VAlmiki Rishis original works, They then are changed to befit their way of dharm.

 

Each to their own. Even if Valmiki rishis Ramayan had been altered , Tulsidas Goswamis version is most defiantely not. They both match, and Tulsidas was Rishi Valmiki himself.

 

People can say whatever they like about the version of the Ramayan i follow. However the way i think and follow the faith cannot change just by their thinking. I wont stand for foolishnes, where people talk about Purshottam Narayan shri Raam as "attaining moksh". Bhagwan doesnt attain moksh He is the giver of moksh.

 

You cant advance spiritually thinking that Raam Bhagwan is a normal person thats definate. You have to see His divinity. You cant find faults in God and His works.

 

My initial point being that i was sim[ly stating that Jains theory of Dharm is totally different so they will not see Ramchandra Bhagwan as God so obviously their idea of the Ramayan would be different. I mean what dont you get about this?

 

Im not hindu, jain christian or muslim. Im the soul which has no tags.

Im just portraying my views like it or lump it my friend.

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.

Who said anything about "being higher" or even lower than a jain?? Im just portraying my views my friend.

 

No need to get personal about it. My point being that Valmiki is the original author, and he knows more about Shri Raam than any Jain follower would. As all other facts about Raam come from his Ramayan. So no matter what others think, the Ramayan stays the Ramayan. Originally written by Sage Valmiki.

 

By the way, yes i know Raam.

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.

I am implying that Jains are Nirakaar VAdis. So what could they possibly know of Bhagwan Raam? As initially they would not believe Him to be God.

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.

Thats because Jains are Nirakaar vadis.

?? 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.

sad to see this becoming a brahmin-bashing thread.

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.