Hindu History

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

I have just read that Krishna and Rama were true living flesh and blood like you and me. It is said that Krishna lived for 125 years and his existence dates back to 2000-3000BC and Rama was even before him, probably another 2000 years before krishna. this means that Krishna and Rama existed long long before Prophet Mohmmad, Jesus Christ and Buddha( Buddha was born somewhere around 560 BC). were all human beings follower of hinduism before these people brought new religions in this world?

 

Any new insights in the history of hinduism and reality of satya, treta and dwapar yuga. if these yugas existed then hindu religion existed millions( even billions) years back.

 

please write somethings you know about hindu evolutuion and how westerners taking it.

 

Ram

[Guest guest]

yes, hinduism has exists since the time of creation.

the vedic literater tells that in the distant past there were far more advanced (spiritually as well as materially) civilizatins than what we have now.

 

try the below link to know about Hinduism and yugas:

 

http://www.geocities.com/shvyaas/Intro-SD.html

 

The book - In Search of Vedic India - by Devamrita Swami would facinate you more. The author is a scholar.

 

-maadhav

[Guest guest]

not hinduism,but sanatana dharma

 

The denomination hinduism is given to too many and too different (often opposite) philosophies/religions to be a synonyom of sanatana dharma

 

not all hindus are sanatana dharmi, the dharma is one, not many

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Here is one person who hides behind the mask of guest, thinks he knows what sanatas dharma is.

 

To him Hindu is misnomer, he does not care if he hurts the feelings of millions who through sacrifice of their blood kept the same tradition alive.

He has learnt a few mantras and so he thinks what sanatan dharma is.

He/she thinks we are stupid we do not know there are differences in what people follow.

You my dear sir, can not even acknowledge what Krishna says; sarva dharma pari tajya. Now contemplate sarva means many and therefore even than people followed all these dharma.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[maadhav 0]

Ganeshprsad ji,

 

praNam!

 

i know this "guest".

he resides here.

you can almost always find him next to my posts.

like the terrorists, he will not assume a good user name.

he is an HK.

 

he just has learned vaishnavism from prabhupada.

while all hindus say prabhupada and chaitanya were hindus, he and prabhupada refuse to say they are hindus.

what they reqlly mean (in my view) is that they do not represent the hinduism identified by malpractice of it.

 

prabhupada has taught HKs to get hell bent on all other paths/yogas given by krishna in gita.

so he is doing it.

 

in essense HKs have hijacked a large portion of hinduism

and then say that they are not hindus.

because most Hks are born in the xian culture,

they still have the mentality of holding monopoly: "ours is the only way."

 

we should appreciate his strict following to guru.

we love dharma and rashtra,

HKs, being not born on the vedic land,

love only the part of hinduism called vaishnavism.

 

a million times i have told here that

hinduism is just a new name of sanatana dharma.

sure the word hindu literally means one who lives on the east of sindhu river, but since several centuries the world knows us as hindus. so, there is no reason to not use the name now as an additional name of sanatana dharma.

 

what we need is to understand it as it is in gita

and practice it correctly.

 

at one time even ramakrishna matha also said that they are not hindus. thus looting from hinduism mine goes on.

many western yoga teachers teach yoga and never mention its source - the vedic people (hindus).

some even misrepresent yogas.

 

because some hindus have malpracticed it for long, and because the anti-hindu culture have really misrepresented hinduism, some choose to throw away that name. but throwing away that name or assuming anothe name does not help.

what will help is to live by dharma as it is given in gita.

 

and now, watch.

this guest immediately will tell that surrendering to krishna is the only dharma, and mention mayavadis.

just see.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

Pranam maadhavji

 

Re

(and now, watch.

this guest immediately will tell that surrendering to krishna is the only dharma, and mention mayavadis.

just see.)

 

You are right

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

Here is one person who hides behind the mask of guest, thinks he knows what sanatas dharma is.

--different... i see too many and opposite dharmas in hinduism to have the possibility to say that all are one (sanatana) dharma...

Imagine the sisupala's lila and imagine to bring before krsna in that assembly, ramakrsna , vivekananda and sai baba

 

You my dear sir, can not even acknowledge what Krishna says; sarva dharma pari tajya. Now contemplate sarva means many and therefore even than people followed all these dharma

--yes.. krsna says "leave all dharmas and surrender to me..". So if you identify all these reunited dharmas as hinduism you agree with krsna in the gita.

Leave that hinduism and surrender..

 

 

because most Hks are born in the xian culture

---hk is in india from 1496.. so most hk are and were indians

 

they still have the mentality of holding monopoly: "ours is the only way."

---my discussion is a fact of denomination... do what you want, i have no problems... be gaudya, be dvaita, be tantric, be advaita, be what you want but do not mix.. these are different religions, not one religion.. And it is not right to unite artificially. In the west someone says "eastern religions" putting all together..islamism, "hiduism", buddhism, scintoism and so on... and they are able also to find common charachteristics.

Are you happy that someone's finding that you and muslims have something in common?

 

political purposes are infinitely less important of having honesty and transparence

 

 

 

and now, watch.

this guest immediately will tell that surrendering to krishna is the only dharma, and mention mayavadis.

just see.

––ganesh mentioned "sarva dharma..." and you have still to demonstrate how so many opposite religions are to be called wih the same name. If you do like that, so i understand that everyone's hinduist.. many hindus are more philosophically similar to christians, muslims, buddhists that to others hindu. (But , for example, a christian, even if he is a protestant christian, luteran, anglican, catholic, evangelist and so on he'll be surely more similar to other christians than to muslims, buddhists and so on..)

 

there's too much variety in hinduism to use the same name

 

(if you do not give satisfactory answers you are easy prophets if you say that the questions will be the again the same.. )

[Guest guest]

Hey ... Only muslims write and think everything inverted.

 

All gods in hinduism are related, so you do not know the basics of hinduism.

 

We hindus pray all gods including krishna, and if you have any problems with this, its you who should change.

 

YOu have no right to say which way hindus shoud pray and which gods hindus should pray... nor can you exclusively claim copy rights for krishna worship.

 

Well...... hindus are the ones who believe in vedas, upanishads, puranas, and concepts like karma, reincarnation etc...

 

If christians and muslims believe in these concepts, then they are also hindus ( you dont even know about hinduism, then how will you know what the other religions are..).

 

So, dont try to thrust your opinion on others.

[Guest guest]

the fact that all "hindus" do some external things like keeping the same murtis and books is nothing compared to the fact that from the same murtis and books they understand opposite concepts,,

 

even what you say is believed only by a little percentage of what you call hindus

[maadhav 0]

tseug,

 

it seems that you are the guest who lives here, and finally you have chosen a non-vaishnav maningless user name.

thanks for that.

 

i already have answered your questions in my past posts.

you simply have chosen to repeat the questios again.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--different... i see too many and opposite dharmas in hinduism to have the possibility to say that all are one (sanatana) dharma...)

 

That is nice, but we also know the differences, but the unity in diversity is what you fail to see.

Even Sri Chetayna Maha Prbhu took sanyas from an advetic sanyasi, this alone should make you humble enough not to get engaged in your offensive attitude.

 

Re

(Imagine the sisupala's lila and imagine to bring before krsna in that assembly, ramakrsna , vivekananda and sai baba )

 

Sisupal is a special person, to be killed personally by the lord is no mean feat, stop trying to emulate sisupal and calling names, stop being personal and respect others gurus.

 

Re

(--yes.. krsna says "leave all dharmas and surrender to me..". So if you identify all these reunited dharmas as hinduism you agree with krsna in the gita.

Leave that hinduism and surrender..)

 

I agree with Krishna, but our perspective are different, it is quiet clear Arjun is concerned of his dharma of killing his guru and kinsman and it is to this regard he says give up all the dharma and surrender on to me I shell protect you from all the sin.

 

Or else what is the point of him saying;

 

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24

 

Re

(---hk is in india from 1496.. so most hk are and were indians)

 

Get you facts right, time has no relevant, all the Vedic practice performed and there has been many, has collectively known as Hindu for many years.

 

Re

(---my discussion is a fact of denomination... )

 

Facts looked from different angles takes up different meaning

 

Re

(do what you want)

 

We do.

 

Re

(i have no problems... )

 

That is big of you.

 

Re

(In the west someone says "eastern religions" putting all together..islamism, "hiduism", buddhism, scintoism and so on... and they are able also to find common charachteristics.

Are you happy that someone's finding that you and muslims have something in common?)

 

No problem I would know my position.

 

Re

(political purposes are infinitely less important of having honesty and transparence)

 

Raja Harishchandra satyavadi we understand, we do not need lesson from you.

 

 

 

 

Re

(there's too much variety in hinduism to use the same name)

 

Variety is the spice of life, there is variety in lords creations are you denying him? Why not?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

I am from India, and I am a hindu, and I know what I am talking about.

Krishna is one of the gods of hinduism ( or sanatan dharma).

 

Jesus is a christian god ( not a hindu god).

 

If you want to have a different opinion, you are very welcome to have that.

 

But be aware that, yours not the view held by the hindus. There is no artificial unity, and most of the hindu temples have the statues of other hindu gods as well, apart from the main deity.

 

So that has been the tradition and practice since quite a long time.

[Guest guest]

I continue from my previous post.

 

Also remember that, by claiming exclusive ownership of krishna ( to satisfy the ego of some guru ), only YOU are trying to create artificial division between ( which does not exist).... as people who worship krishna, except for the followers of a certain guru.. worship pther gods as well.

[Guest guest]

That is nice, but we also know the differences, but the unity in diversity is what you fail to see.

--if these diversities are unity also a muslim or a buddhist is a hindu

 

Even Sri Chetayna Maha Prbhu took sanyas from an advetic sanyasi, this alone should make you humble enough not to get engaged in your offensive attitude.

--mahaprabhu took sannyasa to be more respected in his preaching, not to respect advaitins.. or he respected them fighting their philosophies and making them reject it

 

Sisupal is a special person..

--the comparison was to say if all modern hinduism were approved by sri krsna if he were present in this world. In some indian states there were death penalty until the end of 1800 if some one said that he were God

 

I agree with Krishna, but our perspective are different

--bhagavad gita is for everyone not only for arjuna. Our material dharmas to leave to surrender are also the false identification with material religions based on birth, race and nationality

 

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

--krsna is all attractive because he has infinite qualities. So all aspects of krsna are worshipable included the inpersonal aspects, but not being envious of krsna. if i try to realize the brahman there's nothing bad, but if i try to realize brahman saying that krsna is a maya's aspect and that i will go beyond him this is not dharma, this is aganinst the gita and you cannot put it in the same religion with dharmic schools ad philosophies.

It is like serving some drink with dirt inside

 

(---hk is in india from 1496.. so most hk are and were indians)

Get you facts right, time has no relevant, all the Vedic practice performed and there has been many, has collectively known as Hindu for many years.

--i have said it to explain to you that gaudya vaishnavas never wanted to be identified as hindus even centuries before landing in the west....

 

Variety is the spice of life, there is variety in lords creations are you denying him?

--variety is good... so use a variety of names, why you want to kill variety putting artificially everyone inside one name... the hinduism?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Krishna is one of the gods of hinduism

--is hinduism against sanatana dharma? is hinduism politeist? i do not think so

 

most of the hindu temples have the statues of other hindu gods as well,

--murties are to be properly worshipped with elaborated archana, pujas, offerings. To fill a temple with a lot of statues is not respecting the god's personalities or his direct subordinates, everyone can buy a statue of lord shiva at the market and put it on a bookshelf... this is not worshipping

 

people who worship krishna, except for the followers of a certain guru.. worship pther gods as well.

--it is not possible to worship krsna and despise other krsna's personalities or his servants.. check better your beliefs, study, ask, read...

[Guest guest]

I have no problems in accepting krishna and other gods of hinduism.

Its you who has a seperate opinion.

 

So you get the facts straight.

[Guest guest]

Are you an expert in temple rituals?

Are you an authority?

 

It means the priests who perform poojas in temples are less qualified?

I never seen a person who assumes he knows everything.

 

Remember, you are against the very culture of india and the great religious traditions followed in the temples.

 

YOu ignorant moron... what do you know about temples? I doubt if you have been to any real temple apart from your ISCKON temple.

[Guest guest]

I have no problems in accepting krishna and other gods of hinduism.

--if you truly accept krsna you have to accept the fact that he's supreme

 

Its you who has a seperate opinion.

--yes.. union in collaboration and tolerance.. separatism in denomination

 

Are you an expert in temple rituals?

--a little

 

Are you an authority?

--a private citizen with brain who is not convinced by something that's not well explained.. vedas say that intelligence is a gift of god, so we have to use it

 

It means the priests who perform poojas in temples are less qualified?

--i have said that putting a lot of statues in a temple does not mean that they are really worshipped. if i call lord shiva, lord brahma, lord narasimha, lord krsna in my temple i have to serve them properly, otherwise why call them as a decoration?

 

Remember, you are against the very culture of india and the great religious traditions followed in the temples.

--if you do not know that murti is not a statue but a real manifestation of the lord or his servants and that he/she has to be served like a king, a prince or it is sinful i don't know if you are aware of the archana dharma

 

YOu ignorant moron... what do you know about temples? I doubt if you have been to any real temple apart from your ISCKON temple.

--you are free to doubt

[maadhav 0]

<< --is hinduism against sanatana dharma? >>

no, it is sanatana dharma.

 

<< is hinduism politeist? >>

 

there is no work in english like 'politeist.'

 

if you are asking does hinduism include politics?

then yes, it is called rajakaraNa.

that is the dharma of a king, how to rule.

 

there is also chanakya niti.

that is vedic politics.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Pranam Maadhavji

 

What is Chanakya niti? in this thread of Hindu history we can do with his logic.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--if these diversities are unity also a muslim or a buddhist is a hindu)

 

no problem in absolute term yes, unfortunately like a raksasa a muslim would not agree, just like I can not force you to accept the unity that does exsit.

 

 

((Even Sri Chetayna Maha Prbhu took sanyas from an advetic sanyasi, this alone should make you humble enough not to get engaged in your offensive attitude.))

Re

(--mahaprabhu took sannyasa to be more respected in his preaching, not to respect advaitins.. or he respected them fighting their philosophies and making them reject it)

 

You are simply speculating you have no real answer.

 

 

Re

(--the comparison was to say if all modern hinduism were approved by sri krsna if he were present in this world. In some indian states there were death penalty until the end of 1800 if some one said that he were God)

 

Are you saying Krishna is not present in every atom? Can anything move without his will?

As to the death penalty in some of the states just think who were the rulers?

 

 

((I agree with Krishna, but our perspective are different))

Re

(--bhagavad gita is for everyone not only for arjuna.)

 

sure but there are specific instruction to Arjun also.

 

Re

(Our material dharmas to leave to surrender are also the false identification with material religions based on birth, race and nationality)

 

you are simply playing with words, not making much sense, birth race and nationality is not something you can avoid, even an instituation identification is just a subtitue for other identification.

 

((Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)))

 

Re

(--krsna is all attractive because he has infinite qualities. So all aspects of krsna are worshipable included the inpersonal aspects, but not being envious of krsna. if i try to realize the brahman there's nothing bad, but if i try to realize brahman saying that krsna is a maya's aspect and that i will go beyond him this is not dharma, this is aganinst the gita and you cannot put it in the same religion with dharmic schools ad philosophies.

It is like serving some drink with dirt inside)

 

When if one is on Brahman realization he will negate every thing( nati naiti) not this not this, so stop speculating on their behalf and except what Krishna says.

 

((Get you facts right, time has no relevant, all the Vedic practice performed and there has been many, has collectively known as Hindu for many years.))

Re

(--i have said it to explain to you that gaudya vaishnavas never wanted to be identified as hindus even centuries before landing in the west....)

 

What you are saying has no historical evidence the fact is we all bore the brunt of Islamic brutality for being Hindu, only recently some sects have a problem with the name, some of the time and some times they do not mind calling them self Hindus, in my book this is hypocritical.

 

((Variety is the spice of life, there is variety in lords creations are you denying him? ))

Re

(--variety is good... so use a variety of names, why you want to kill variety putting artificially everyone inside one name... the hinduism?)

 

You miss the point just as you do not deny the variety in the lord we do not deny the variety in vedic dharma(Hinduism)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

(--mahaprabhu took sannyasa to be more respected in his preaching, not to respect advaitins.. or he respected them fighting their philosophies and making them reject it)

You are simply speculating you have no real answer.

••mahaprabhu's byographies are easily available... chaitanya charitamrita is sold all over the world

 

(--the comparison was to say if all modern hinduism were approved by sri krsna if he were present in this world. In some indian states there were death penalty until the end of 1800 if some one said that he were God)

Are you saying Krishna is not present in every atom? Can anything move without his will?

••krsna is also maya.. it is not that if a religion is existing , it is automatically vedic or dharmic

 

As to the death penalty in some of the states just think who were the rulers?

••death penalty for who were claiming to be god was in many regions with total or big autonomy

 

you are simply playing with words, not making much sense, birth race and nationality is not something you can avoid

••simply bodily identifications... we are spiritual souls.. "aham brahmasmi.." i am spirit, not i am spirit + body

 

When if one is on Brahman realization he will negate every thing

••so if he negate the object of worship of someone, he cannot stay in the same religion. In islamism there's no people who simultaneously accept allah and people who negate allah, the same with christ in christianism, and buddha in buddhism.

So how i can worship the "hindu" god (krsna, vishnu) and being "hindu" together with someone else who negates the "hindu" god?

 

What you are saying has no historical evidence

••find the word "hindu" or any appreciation of hindu impersonalism or hindu classic equality of all sacred personalities (god and devas) in a gaudya literature

 

they do not mind calling them self Hindus, in my book this is hypocritical.

••in my book is simply precision and truthfulness

 

 

 

 

[maadhav 0]

Chankya (also known as bhagavan kautilya) was a brahmin

and a guru of chandragupta maurya,

the grandson of samraat ashok.

 

he raised chandragupta to a king's position.

like drona, he taught shastra and shaastra to chandragupta.

 

The link below gives the sripture - chankaya niti

the vedic wisdom of political science.

 

http://www.geocities.com/shvyaas/Chanakya-Niti.html

 

hope you would enjoy it.

[maadhav 0]

<< --variety is good... so use a variety of names, why you want to kill variety putting artificially everyone inside one name... the hinduism? >>

 

human speces is one, but it has variety like whites, blacks, yellows, etc.

 

sanaana dharma has a variety of god given ways of realizing god, or going to god. gita gives a number of yogas.

any one who lives by gita and practices one or more yoga is a sanatana dharmi or a hindu.

 

veda describes many devas and devis.

any worshipper of one or more deva or devis of the vedas is a hindu. advaitis as well as dvaitis both are hindus.

sivaite, shakta, or vaishnavas are also hindus.

why? becaue their sadhana or deity is mentioned in the vedas. and they all have lived in one country since milleniums without killing each other.

 

if some who worships some deity not mentioned in the vedas or does a sadhana not mentioned in the vedas,

then he is not a hindu.

 

this is as crystal clear as it could be,

but you will not get it.

 

now, why put all these under hinduism?

becasue:

- the source is one - the vedas

- the country is one - devabhoomi bharat

- and enemy of hinduism are many.

 

and therefore there is need to unite to defeat the enemies.

being an HK you are a hindu, but you hate hindus more than muslims who slaughted hindus in millions.

but remember, islam will not keep you alive if they get enough power. you are a kafir to them.

hindus chant and dance with you,

and you have difficulty undestanding them,

and are rejecting their invitation to unite with them.

 

perhaps the reason for is this, i guess:

you are thinking: "if i go against the muslims, they will kill me soon. if however i go against the hindus, then they will not kill me, and muslims will be my friends, and therefore i will live longer."

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

Re

(--mahaprabhu took sannyasa to be more respected in his preaching, not to respect advaitins.. or he respected them fighting their philosophies and making them reject it)

You are simply speculating you have no real answer.

••mahaprabhu's byographies are easily available... chaitanya charitamrita is sold all over the world)

 

A biography written by advati would be different you are still missing the point; advaita is part of Vedic philosophy Sri Shakrachriya is testimony to that.

 

Re

(Are you saying Krishna is not present in every atom? Can anything move without his will?

••krsna is also maya.. it is not that if a religion is existing , it is automatically vedic or dharmic)

it is not for you to decide

 

Re

(As to the death penalty in some of the states just think who were the rulers?

••death penalty for who were claiming to be god was in many regions with total or big autonomy)

 

and as such not vedic

Re

(you are simply playing with words, not making much sense, birth race and nationality is not something you can avoid

••simply bodily identifications... we are spiritual souls.. "aham brahmasmi.." i am spirit, not i am spirit + body)

 

 

And if you able to function without the aid of your body let me know I will accept you as my guru.

You have here accused other of being cheat for talking about oneness prove me you are spirit show me that spirit or else you are a cheat.

Re

(When if one is on Brahman realization he will negate every thing

••so if he negate the object of worship of someone, he cannot stay in the same religion. )

 

He is not of the same school of thought but he is still a vedic practionar.

Re

(In islamism there's no people who simultaneously accept allah and people who negate allah, the same with christ in christianism, and buddha in buddhism.)

for they do not fully understand the nature of the lord he is serva.

Re

(So how i can worship the "hindu" god (krsna, vishnu) and being "hindu" together with someone else who negates the "hindu" god?)

Brahman is also form of the lord so ultimately there is no negation

 

Re

(What you are saying has no historical evidence

••find the word "hindu" or any appreciation of hindu impersonalism or hindu classic equality of all sacred personalities (god and devas) in a gaudya literature)

 

You would not find any one refuting to be hindu until reacently.

Before 1965 you would not find iskcon in any literatures let alone gaudya.

Re

(they do not mind calling them self Hindus, in my book this is hypocritical.

••in my book is simply precision and truthfulness)

 

 

what being hypocrites?

 

Jai Shree Krishna