Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 ॐ भूर् भु॑वः सुवः त॑त् सवितु॑र् व॑रेणियं भ॑र्गो देव॑स्य धीमहि धि॑यो यो॑ नः प्रचोद॑यात् (arial unicode fonts) I SUGGEST THAT ALL SHOULD UNITE IN USING ONE MANTRA AND NO OTHER: THE SAAWITRII GAAiATRII. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 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. 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. How can a philosophy that rejects parts of the collections of the Vedas and accepts some of it be DIRECTLY FROM there? 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. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 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. 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. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riih.qarojamahoamaan Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 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. I would agree with you. Many of the Upanishadic sages were from Kshatriya background. 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 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. 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. 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? 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... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 I would agree with you. Many of the Upanishadic sages were from Kshatriya background. 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. 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? 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. 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/ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Buddhism and Jainism do not model themselves as religions created primarily to battle the Vedic religion. The truth is, the Vedic religion does not figure as a prominent entity in early Buddhist texts. It is treated very casually as just another one of dozens of different beliefs of that time. The Pancharatra belief is based on worship of Vasudeva and has been described in some detail in the Mahabharata. Pashupatha, Pancharatra and Bhagavata beliefs are non-Vedic in origin and form the basis for most common practices of Hinduism as it exists today. Again, do not confuse the Varna system with the Caste system. The caste system has nothing to do with Brahmins trying to maintain control over others. The Brahmins had strict caste boundaries within themselves and would not marry from one group to another until a few decades ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sreeram Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 At one point of time budhisam and Jainism were most popular in India. A lot of Hindu temples get converted into Jain and budha temple. At this point of time great Adi Shankaracharya came with his philosophy and reinforced Hinduism and recovered many temple all over India. This is true. But the point is can these religions are considered as Hindus?. I stick to my point. These religions are developed in Indus valley so if anyone want, they can be called a Hindus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 At this point of time great Adi Shankaracharya came with his philosophy and reinforced Hinduism and recovered many temple all over India. This is true. Shankara was not responsible for eliminating Buddhism in India. His primary opponents were the Purva Mimamsa Brahmins. There are any number of possible reasons for the fall of Buddhism in India, but Shankara is not one of them. Please read The Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India by Kanai Lal Hazra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 The Pancharatra belief is based on worship of Vasudeva and has been described in some detail in the Mahabharata. Pashupatha, Pancharatra and Bhagavata beliefs are non-Vedic in origin and form the basis for most common practices of Hinduism as it exists today. Seee, this is what I have been trying to explain to Number 2. I know specifically that the early Bhagavatas and Pancharatras were against animal, fire sacrifice, and penances. In addition, they were against "Orthodox Brahminism". What I do not know and would like to know if you have any information is to how they became Vedic? From my understanding, it may have happened due to tampering with the texts like Bhagavad Gita etc.. during Brahmin power? Even Vivekananda and Sri Auribindo have stated that the Bhagavad Gita as we kow today is not the original. Vivekananda did his level best and went every where looking for the the original but could not find it. If you have anymore information please let us know. In addition, I agree with you that there must have been 11 or 12 different beliefs at the time. As I have stated earlier that there are many beliefs and spiritual paths in India. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niranjan Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Even Vivekananda and Sri Auribindo have stated that the Bhagavad Gita as we kow today is not the original. Vivekananda did his level best and went every where looking for the the original but could not find it. I have read the ' Complete works of Vivekananda' and I don't recall reading anywhere Vivekananda stating that the Bhagavad Gita as we know today is not the original. In fact I recall reading Vivekananda profusely praising the Gita. Heres what Aurobindo has to say about the Bhagavad Gita....... "The Bhagavad-Gita is a true scripture of the human race a living creation rather than a book, with a new message for every age and a new meaning for every civilization." - Aurobindo If the Bhagavad Gita was not the original as you are stating, then I don't think Vivekananda and Aurobindo would have been lavish in their praise for the Bhagavad Gita. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 I have read the ' Complete works of Vivekananda' and I don't recall reading anywhere Vivekananda stating that the Bhagavad Gita as we know today is not the original. In fact I recall reading Vivekananda profusely praising the Gita. Heres what Aurobindo has to say about the Bhagavad Gita....... "The Bhagavad-Gita is a true scripture of the human race a living creation rather than a book, with a new message for every age and a new meaning for every civilization." - Aurobindo If the Bhagavad Gita was not the original as you are stating, then I don't think Vivekananda and Aurobindo would have been lavish in their praise for the Bhagavad Gita. Oh yes they did say that. I will find it and quote it for you. Plus who said you cannot praise the Gita just because things were added on to it? I know certain things were added on to the Gita but I still consider it holy and the spoken word of Krishna. Even the Koran and Bible have been changed here and there in order to rule and divide. Why couldn't the Brahmins do it? This is all historical knowledge. You need to do some serious research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Seee, this is what I have been trying to explain to Number 2. I know specifically that the early Bhagavatas and Pancharatras were against animal, fire sacrifice, and penances. In addition, they were against "Orthodox Brahminism". What I do not know and would like to know if you have any information is to how they became Vedic? Here is my take on this.Pancharatra and such other beliefs are never considered part of the Vedas (and are therefore not Vedic). However, certain portions of these belief structures were borrowed by the Brahmanas to evolve their religion. More details below in points. 1. The Brahmanas were always a minority. They make up less than 4% of the country’s population today and it cannot have been very different back then. 2. As everyone knows the mantras were restricted to Brahmanas only. They worshipped Indra, Mitra, Varuna, sacrificed animal products such as flesh and ghee (clarified butter) into fires and drank intoxicating soma juice. 3. The general non-Brahmana public had other beliefs like Pancharatra, Bhagavata, Pashupata, Jainism, Buddhism and a number of such beliefs. The Lalita Vistara – a biography of the Buddha – lists 63 beliefs* that existed during the Buddha’s time. in reality, there were probably a lot more. 4. The sacrificial style religion of the Brahmanas became obsolete and gave way to the speculative Upanishadic style of thinking. But even this clearly was not for everyone. They realized they had to come up with something that appealed to the majority and was easily available to the majority. 5. To this end, the Brahmanas decided to shop around and borrow elements from other religions - not very different from Cisco buying WebEx. From other existing beliefs, they borrowed popular Gods such as Shiva, Vasudeva, Krishna, Rama, etc., mapped them to Rudra and Vishnu of the Vedas, introduced the concept of avatars and initiated the birth of a new form of religion which has evolved in to Hinduism consisting of idol worship, temples and Bhajans. 6. Since the Vedic canon was sacrosanct and frozen in time, the Brahmanas could not make any changes there. Hence, they created material along this new direction and inserted this religious material into Puranas**, the Mahabharata and made them available to non-Brahmanas. 7. Their key accomplishment in developing Hinduism was to map most local Gods to either Vishnu or Shiva thus automatically making these indigenous beliefs a part of Hinduism too (some of the more daring ones attempted to map the Buddha to Vishnu too without much success). *See A History of Early Vedanta by Hajime Nakamura. **See Ancient Indian Historical Tradition by F E Pargiter. The Puranas were originally a set of stories of Royal lineages, along with the glories and accomplishments of kings. These stories were orally maintained by the Sutas for many generations. At some point, the Brahmanas decided to take over and write them down and in the process inserted religious material turning them into a set of religious texts. It is still a mystery as to why they wrote so many of them with conflicting material. The Gita was very likely a smaller text without the irrelevant descriptions of Sankhya, Yoga and other totally-out-of-context material. These were later embellishments added in the process of modifying it into a religious text. Anyway, why is the Bhagavad Gita such a big deal and the Anu Gita given no importance? Did Shankara comment on the BG because it was a popular text or did the BG become popular because Shankara commented on it? The question lingers….but we will never know the answer. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Here is my take on this.Pancharatra and such other beliefs are never considered part of the Vedas (and are therefore not Vedic). However, certain portions of these belief structures were borrowed by the Brahmanas to evolve their religion. More details below in points. 1. The Brahmanas were always a minority. They make up less than 4% of the country’s population today and it cannot have been very different back then. 2. As everyone knows the mantras were restricted to Brahmanas only. They worshipped Indra, Mitra, Varuna, sacrificed animal products such as flesh and ghee (clarified butter) into fires and drank intoxicating soma juice. 3. The general non-Brahmana public had other beliefs like Pancharatra, Bhagavata, Pashupata, Jainism, Buddhism and a number of such beliefs. The Lalita Vistara – a biography of the Buddha – lists 63 beliefs* that existed during the Buddha’s time. in reality, there were probably a lot more. 4. The sacrificial style religion of the Brahmanas became obsolete and gave way to the speculative Upanishadic style of thinking. But even this clearly was not for everyone. They realized they had to come up with something that appealed to the majority and was easily available to the majority. 5. To this end, the Brahmanas decided to shop around and borrow elements from other religions - not very different from Cisco buying WebEx. From other existing beliefs, they borrowed popular Gods such as Shiva, Vasudeva, Krishna, Rama, etc., mapped them to Rudra and Vishnu of the Vedas, introduced the concept of avatars and initiated the birth of a new form of religion which has evolved in to Hinduism consisting of idol worship, temples and Bhajans. 6. Since the Vedic canon was sacrosanct and frozen in time, the Brahmanas could not make any changes there. Hence, they created material along this new direction and inserted this religious material into Puranas**, the Mahabharata and made them available to non-Brahmanas. 7. Their key accomplishment in developing Hinduism was to map most local Gods to either Vishnu or Shiva thus automatically making these indigenous beliefs a part of Hinduism too (some of the more daring ones attempted to map the Buddha to Vishnu too without much success). *See A History of Early Vedanta by Hajime Nakamura. **See Ancient Indian Historical Tradition by F E Pargiter. The Puranas were originally a set of stories of Royal lineages, along with the glories and accomplishments of kings. These stories were orally maintained by the Sutas for many generations. At some point, the Brahmanas decided to take over and write them down and in the process inserted religious material turning them into a set of religious texts. It is still a mystery as to why they wrote so many of them with conflicting material. The Gita was very likely a smaller text without the irrelevant descriptions of Sankhya, Yoga and other totally-out-of-context material. These were later embellishments added in the process of modifying it into a religious text. Anyway, why is the Bhagavad Gita such a big deal and the Anu Gita given no importance? Did Shankara comment on the BG because it was a popular text or did the BG become popular because Shankara commented on it? The question lingers….but we will never know the answer. Cheers Thanks for your input. Are you a practicing Hindu? While I generally agree with most of what you said, I have a few oppositions. It seems to be that you are indicating that Lord Krishna was not a divine being nor is his Gita? Also, you seem to be indicating that the puranic stories and Mahabharata were turned "religious". Maybe I am getting the wrong impression. If this is the case we can make the same assertion about Islam (Koran or Hadith)or Buddhism (Jataka tales) or Christianity (Bible). We all know these stories and legends have truth but how can we say these are religious? Also, I would have to disagree with the fact that Vaishnavism- the belief that Vishnu incarnates to save Dharma is a work of Brahmins. The concept of Avatar was actually the religion of Kshatriyas which evolved out of Upanishadic age as did Jainism and Buddhism and Vaishnavism was at least originally against Brahminism. This is why Krishna, Rama etc... Are all Kshatriyas. Vishnu himself, although mentioned as a minor deity in the Vedas has non-aryan indigenous origins. In addition, if you study the Vedas and the religion of Vaishnavism- with the exception of a Brahmin strong hold- it is completely different from the early minority religion of Brahmin-Vedas. Vaishnavism is actually more closely related to the ancient Egyptian religion as they too believed the in the mother holy cow, avatars, doctrine of reincarnation, karma and yoga. All of the core beliefs of Vaishnavism are absent in the early religion of Brahmins or Vedas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Plus who said you cannot praise the Gita just because things were added on to it? Well it loses it's "specialness" then. You cannot accept it as the spoken word of Krishna. You can't trust it all as true. If it's been tampered with who knows what the original message was? Anyways I've always seen the Gita as an Upanishad. It has in turn been influenced by the Svetashvatara Upanishad, which is though to pre-date the Gita. Even the Koran and Bible have been changed here and there in order to rule and divide. Why couldn't the Brahmins do it? I'm sure muslims would argue otherwise that the koran has never changed. It doesn't matter to me, I don't believe in the koran anyway. Anyway, why is the Bhagavad Gita such a big deal and the Anu Gita given no importance? Who knows about the Anu Gita? What is it about? The Bhagavad Gita has struck a chord with many of the Acharya's who wrote commentaires on it. The Anu Gita seems to be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Thanks for your input. Are you a practicing Hindu? While I generally agree with most of what you said, I have a few oppositions. It seems to be that you are indicating that Lord Krishna was not a divine being nor is his Gita? Also, you seem to be indicating that the puranic stories and Mahabharata were turned "religious". Maybe I am getting the wrong impression. If this is the case we can make the same assertion about Islam (Koran or Hadith)or Buddhism (Jataka tales) or Christianity (Bible). We all know these stories and legends have truth but how can we say these are religious? Also, I would have to disagree with the fact that Vaishnavism- the belief that Vishnu incarnates to save Dharma is a work of Brahmins. The concept of Avatar was actually the religion of Kshatriyas which evolved out of Upanishadic age as did Jainism and Buddhism and Vaishnavism was at least originally against Brahminism. This is why Krishna, Rama etc... Are all Kshatriyas. Vishnu himself, although mentioned as a minor deity in the Vedas has non-aryan indigenous origins. In addition, if you study the Vedas and the religion of Vaishnavism- with the exception of a Brahmin strong hold- it is completely different from the early minority religion of Brahmin-Vedas. Vaishnavism is actually more closely related to the ancient Egyptian religion as they too believed the in the mother holy cow, avatars, doctrine of reincarnation, karma and yoga. All of the core beliefs of Vaishnavism are absent in the early religion of Brahmins or Vedas. I think we are almost alike in our thinking here - except for the avatar part. I am not saying Krishna and Rama are fake Gods. It is clear that Krishna and Rama are not mentioned anywhere in the Vedas, but are big names in the Purana literature. So either they came after the Vedas or were already well established as divine personalities in non-Brahmana religions. Eventually they all came together in some fashion to form the new evolved religion which we now call Hinduism. I say Krishna and Rama were turned into avatars at this point by the Brahmanas just like they tried the same with the Buddha and other local Gods too. I think you will disagree with this one, but this is my theory. We have seen this happen in more recent times too where every Guru (Shankara, Madhva, Chaitanya, Sai Baba...) is avatarized by their followers. It is also of interest that the ISKCON position that Krishna is *not* an avatar of Vishnu, but everything including Vishnu come from Krishna existed even before the formation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In other words, there was at least one group that rejected the popular list of Vishnu's avatars. The chief objective of the Gita is to motivate Arjuna to work. That way the Gita is primarily a Karma yoga text. This is why I say it is very likely that it was not a full blown religious text originally. The Puranas were primarily history and folklore - unlike the heavy religious bodies that they are today. The Brahmanas used the Puranas as a medium to disseminate the new form of their religion. Purana research is an intriguing topic and like I said earlier you can consult Pargiter, RC Hazra, Dasgupta, et al., for a critical view of their development into the present state. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I think we are almost alike in our thinking here - except for the avatar part. I am not saying Krishna and Rama are fake Gods. It is clear that Krishna and Rama are not mentioned anywhere in the Vedas, but are big names in the Purana literature. So either they came after the Vedas or were already well established as divine personalities in non-Brahmana religions. Eventually they all came together in some fashion to form the new evolved religion which we now call Hinduism. I say Krishna and Rama were turned into avatars at this point by the Brahmanas just like they tried the same with the Buddha and other local Gods too. I think you will disagree with this one, but this is my theory. We have seen this happen in more recent times too where every Guru (Shankara, Madhva, Chaitanya, Sai Baba...) is avatarized by their followers. It is also of interest that the ISKCON position that Krishna is *not* an avatar of Vishnu, but everything including Vishnu come from Krishna existed even before the formation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In other words, there was at least one group that rejected the popular list of Vishnu's avatars. The chief objective of the Gita is to motivate Arjuna to work. That way the Gita is primarily a Karma yoga text. This is why I say it is very likely that it was not a full blown religious text originally. The Puranas were primarily history and folklore - unlike the heavy religious bodies that they are today. The Brahmanas used the Puranas as a medium to disseminate the new form of their religion. Purana research is an intriguing topic and like I said earlier you can consult Pargiter, RC Hazra, Dasgupta, et al., for a critical view of their development into the present state. Cheers I finally made an account! Well that's a better explanation. Although, I have to say that I cannot fathom the concept of Avatars as a Brahminical one since it was completely absent in early Vedic tradition. So are you Hindu? Well if you are then I must say I don't meet too many Hindus who see most things on the same plane. I have always been curious to research Hinduism as we know it today due to many things that didn't make sense to me.Most people I talk to often turn away from Hinduism because they find it rather confusing or unorganized. I cant blame them as I was in the same boat and I grew up a Hindu! I am a true seeker and learner in that sense and I believe the highest truth and spirituality is one that not only lies in the past but remains hidden in this age of Kali Yug. You must search for it. With that said, bieng a devotee of Lord Krishna I decided to do extensive research on Lord Krishna's character. So far I have learned a lot, although I am sure I have a lot more to do and any reference would help. I have ordered the three volume set of Harivamsa and will be reading those thoroughly. This is my intake so far atleast in dealing with Lord Krishna's character, I can go into details with Hinduism in general but that would take up a lot of time as Hinduism is a vast majority of traditions. In my opinion, and I am not writing for the sake of bieng a believer in Krishna but I have read a few scholars who claim Krishna was not historical, but I believe that Lord Krishna was without a doubt a real historical person that lived as a king, a saviour of his community, and a philosopher. As to when he lived in in the air and I can only speculate somewhere between 900BC-600BC. I do not agree with the Vedic dates such as 3102BC. What I know of Lord Krishna is from his Puranic stories which are historical accounts and folktales. I do not believe Lord Krishna had 16,008 wives. I believe that was either a methaphor or a cunning attempt by Brahmins to ridicule his character which is not unusual as they did that with Buddha in the Puranas as well. As far as Radha, I do not believe she was historically the wife of Krishna. Krishna had other wives namely Rukmini. Again, Radha is either an imaginery character cooked up by Brahmin poets or MAYBE a historical woman who was devoted to Krishna sometime WAY later down on the line.Something like Meera Bai. This is the reason why it is said through Radha one can attain Krishna's love. This is a methaphor. I believe Lord Krishna was the son of Devaki. Lord Krishna is also named Kesava, Kanha, and namely Vasudeva. Vasudeva means "Snake God" and it was nothing but another name for Krishna. As far as Vasudev bieng Krishna's father is questionable. I think Krishna, Vasudeva, Kesava, Kanha were the same person-Krishna. Just as Buddha goes by Buddha, Siddharta, Sakyamuni etc... I do not believe Vasudeva was different from Krishna as a few scholars have stated. I believe they are the same person. With that said, there are many references to Krishna (Vasudeva) in greek writings. It is also a well attested fact that Krishna, arjuna and Balarama were bieng worshipped as saints in earlier times.In addition, Lord Krishna is historically the cousin of the 22nd Jain thirankara Neminath. Neminath is said to have lived during the age of the early Upanishads. Howeever, since these are all ancient persons and therem hasn't been an accurate chronology of their life their history is somewhat obscured. But suffice to say, if Neminath is Lord Krishna's cousin and if he lived during the early period of the Upanishads then it makes sense as to Lord Krishna's teachings in the Gita which is also contained in the Upanidhads. Also, according to many Jains, Lord Krishna was Jain and Gora Angirasa of Chandogya Upanishad is none other then Jain saint Neminath. There are some scholars that also support this fact. I do not rely on Srimad Bhagavatam. They were written much later then The Gita and the Mahabharata. They are nothing but stories taken from the earlier volume Harivamsa with Brahminical ideologies added on to it. I only follow the Gita and Mahabharata. However, I do believe The Gita has been changed here and there due to Brahminical interpolation. It is obvious because the early religion of the Bhagavatas, whom worshipped Krishna did not believe in sacrifices and penances and these occur in the Gita. How so? Weird. Anyhow, thanks for the book references, I will be sure to check them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 The Adi-parva is the first section of the Mahabharata. In this section, it is said the original composition by Vyasa was only 8800 verses (Jaya). Vysampayana increased the size to 24000 verses (Bharata) and by the time it was recited by Ugrasravas, the size had become 90000 verses (Mahabharata). If the original text was only 8800 verses, then what are the chances that the Bhagavad Gita from the original was already containing 700 verses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niranjan Posted March 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Oh yes they did say that. I will find it and quote it for you. Please do so immediately. Only after that will I accept your saying that Vivekananda and Aurobinda had said that the Gita had been tampered. And I don't think there is any proof to show that the Brahmins have tampered the Gita. Krishna himself in the Gita criticizes the flowery words of the Vedas, and opens the way to salvation to vaishyas, shudras and women. If the Brahmins have tampered with it, they would have immediately removed these verses from the Gita, but we do not find it to be so. Similarly in the Bhagavatam and the Mahabharatha, we find Krishna rebelling successfully against the worship of Indra by the Brahmins and humbling Indra. Again if the Brahmins have tampered with these texts, we would not have found these episodes in Krishna's life. We should understand that the Vaishnavas themselves, who worship Krishna as the Lord himself, would have found it a great blasphemy to tamper with the Gita or the Mahabharatha or the Bhagavatam, and hence for this reason I must say the Gita at the present moment is what it is 5000 years back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Please do so immediately. Only after that will I accept your saying that Vivekananda and Aurobinda had said that the Gita had been tampered. And I don't think there is any proof to show that the Brahmins have tampered the Gita. Krishna himself in the Gita criticizes the flowery words of the Vedas, and opens the way to salvation to vaishyas, shudras and women. If the Brahmins have tampered with it, they would have immediately removed these verses from the Gita, but we do not find it to be so. Similarly in the Bhagavatam and the Mahabharatha, we find Krishna rebelling successfully against the worship of Indra by the Brahmins and humbling Indra. Again if the Brahmins have tampered with these texts, we would not have found these episodes in Krishna's life. We should understand that the Vaishnavas themselves, who worship Krishna as the Lord himself, would have found it a great blasphemy to tamper with the Gita or the Mahabharatha or the Bhagavatam, and hence for this reason I must say the Gita at the present moment is what it is 5000 years back. Well that is your opinion. You shouldn't be reading ths thread if you do not wish to discuss historical context of Lord Krishna, Mahabharata(Gita) or Hinduism for that matter. The Srimad Bhagavatam was written hundreds and hundreds of years after Mahabharata and the Gita. As I have stated earlier, they are nothing but stories taken from an earlier volume called "Harivamsa" with Brahminical Ideologies added on to it. It is a text made for Brahmins by Brahmins. I have no problem if Brahmins wish to follow it to satisfy their own ego but I do not believe Lord Krishna who lived long long ago was so pro Brahmin that he lived only for the dire sake of Brahmins. Brahmins were always a minority so it is highly unlikely that Lord Krishna was sooo supportive of them. In addition, Lord Krishna did some things which were directly anti-Brahmin. However, I do not believe he hated all Brahmins. The Brahmins on the other hand did a good job of making Lord Kirishna their slave in Srimad Bhagavatam. The difference between the Bhagavatam and Gita (Mahabharata) is like the difference between the old and new testament of the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 And I don't think there is any proof to show that the Brahmins have tampered the Gita. Krishna himself in the Gita criticizes the flowery words of the Vedas, and opens the way to salvation to vaishyas, shudras and women. If the Brahmins have tampered with it, they would have immediately removed these verses from the Gita, but we do not find it to be so. Exactly so. The Gita does not support caste discrimination and says even a shudra can attain the supreme. It seems rather odd that it could've been tampered with by Brahmins and not boost their importance. I do find the idea of Brahmins tampering all those numerous scriptures quite silly and what were all the other Hindus doing when this supposedly happened. I find these other Hindus must've been incredibly stupid, weak and not worthy of any respect if they just sat down and let this happen. Their's own scriptures being tampered with by Brahmins and them not even preserving the original message! I must say the Gita at the present moment is what it is 5000 years back. I have reservations about saying it's 5000 years old. I know that Vaishnavas accept it as such but much of the information in the Gita is already in other Upanishads and the Gita itself could be described as an Upanishad. The main Upanishads are dated from 800BC to 200BC, with some minor 'later' Upanishads coming in up to 200AD. The Gita as it doesn't even mention Buddhism and Jainism was probably written between 600-300BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Exactly so. The Gita does not support caste discrimination and says even a shudra can attain the supreme. It seems rather odd that it could've been tampered with by Brahmins and not boost their importance. I do find the idea of Brahmins tampering all those numerous scriptures quite silly and what were all the other Hindus doing when this supposedly happened. I find these other Hindus must've been incredibly stupid, weak and not worthy of any respect if they just sat down and let this happen. Their's own scriptures being tampered with by Brahmins and them not even preserving the original message! Are you kidding me? Have you read the Manu Smriti? It was created by Brahmins and was IMPOSED on the entire soceity when they gained power with those Rajputs that supported them. It is said that the Brahmins gained power sometime after or during the Gupta Era, and this was exactly when the Manu Smirti was written (200BC-200AD). It was one of the most inhumane Law codes ever written. This is even been proven by Historians and Human Rights Organizations. And you are saying how can the Brahmins tamper with those texts while Hindus just sat there> Easy, look at the laws that were created to support and favor the Brahmins. Infact, one could not even harm a Brahmin he would have to be put to death or fined. Yea, I am sure the Hindus became really weak and innocent after that. Look at India now, everyone looks up to Brahmins, even though Brahmins continiously shut the doors on low castes and when a non-Brahmin wants to become a priest they are condemned by Brahmins for doing so. If it is that bad now, I can only imagine how bad it was a thousand years ago.The Dalits and Sudras do not even have the power to speak up. They say that God has made them this way-because they are told so by Brahmins. They are so weak-very weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Exactly so. The Gita does not support caste discrimination and says even a shudra can attain the supreme. It seems rather odd that it could've been tampered with by Brahmins and not boost their importance. Once again you are making a mistake by confusing varna with caste. If you read the descriptions of the different Varnas in the Gita, it is clear that the Brahmana is exalted over the rest. I do find the idea of Brahmins tampering all those numerous scriptures quite silly and what were all the other Hindus doing when this supposedly happened. I find these other Hindus must've been incredibly stupid, weak and not worthy of any respect if they just sat down and let this happen. Their's own scriptures being tampered with by Brahmins and them not even preserving the original message! It is common knowledge that literary material was always in the hands of Brahmanas. They taught the Veda, maintained manuscripts of Puranas and wrote new literature. This does not mean everyone else was necessarily stupid. Different groups played different roles in society as you must be well aware. If there was no meddling why are there so many different recensions of the same texts? The South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata do not contain the story of Ganesha writing the text with his tusk. When a critical edition of the Mahabharata was put together, the Ganesha story was dropped out as it was certainly a later interpolation. Why are there clear references to Shankara by name and his demonic school in some Vaishnava Puranas which were never noticed for several centuries even after the time of Shankara? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Why are there clear references to Shankara by name and his demonic school in some Vaishnava Puranas which were never noticed for several centuries even after the time of Shankara? Really? Is this Adi Shankara? I know Adi Shankara was opposed to the Baghavata (Vaishnava) religion. But he did claim to be a follow of "Krishna" and he did write a commentary on the Gita. Althuogh he did not believe in the principle of action and only focused to knowledge. If you have any more information then please let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.