could someone who knows history help please?

[Guest guest]

I know that i really shouldn't be on a forum about hindus, but i am looking for some information on India. I am trying to write a historical fiction about several cultures in the era of around 1500 BC. That's all i can really say about it, because i get paranoid about being ripped off and everything.

 

But if anyone here would like to help, i would be overjoyed! There are so many sites out there that India is confusing. I can research the Shang and Egypt...but i'm stuck with India. So here are a few of my questions:

 

1) What is this "aryan invasion" theory? Why is it discredited? How did it come about?

 

2) The Indus Valley civilization is part of Pakistan, but is it still considered part of Indian history? How is it related to India's history? And, most of all, what was it like?

 

3) Besides the Indus Valley civilization, what other cultures were there in India? Was hinduism even a religion back then? What kinds of worship did hindus do, and were there any other religions besides hinduism?

 

Anyways, those are just a few of my questions, but I think they're the easiest. If anyone replies, they don't have to make a long novel out of it, since that would be a bit to read, but if anyone replies that could give me some kind of starting point to continue my own research.

 

--Niahra

[Guest guest]

 

Instead of listening to opinions in discussion forums which will range from "Hinduism is billions of years old" to Hinduism is ~2000 years old, you will be better off reading a history book.

 

Try Basham's "The wonder that was India". It is easily available and if you are in the US, your local public library ought to have a copy or they should be able to locate one through their associates.

 

Cheers

 

[jay74 0]

1) What is this "aryan invasion" theory? Why is it discredited? How did it come about?

 

Premise of the Aryan invasion theory is that Aryans probably around 1500 bc invaded India and they formed the Brahmin class. They had responsible for the Sanskrit and the Vedas.

 

The reason it was discredited is that there is no evidence that it really happened, everyone is speculating. Only solid evidence we have right now is our genetic make up. Genetic evidence points that from India, people migrated some 15000 years back to various parts of the Globe.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

 

 

 

2) The Indus Valley civilization is part of Pakistan, but is it still considered part of Indian history? How is it related to India's history? And, most of all, what was it like?

 

From WIKI-

Seals have been found at Mohenjo-daro depicting a figure standing on its head, and one sitting cross-legged; perhaps the earliest indication, at least illustration, of the practice of yoga. A horned figure in a meditation pose (see image, Pashupati, below right) has been interpreted as one of the earliest depictions of the god Shiva.

 

 

Pakistan was part of India 63 years back. Hindu/Buddhist kings ruled Pakistan time immemorial. Just because Arab and thier more recent Pakistani thugs ethinically cleansed Hindus does not mean Hindus did not live there. Chandragupta Maurya's kingdom extended all the way from Afghanistan to Bangladesh.

 

3) Besides the Indus Valley civilization, what other cultures were there in India? Was hinduism even a religion back then? What kinds of worship did hindus do, and were there any other religions besides hinduism?

 

Hinduism has no definite beginning and there is no founder in Hinduism. Hinduism started of as a Sacrificial religion. When the Vedas were codified around 1500bc it was all rituals and sacrifices to various Gods. Upanishads was first attempt to understand and realise supreme Brahman.

 

 

[narayanadasa 0]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

I know that i really shouldn't be on a forum about hindus, but i am looking for some information on India. I am trying to write a historical fiction about several cultures in the era of around 1500 BC. That's all i can really say about it, because i get paranoid about being ripped off and everything.

 

But if anyone here would like to help, i would be overjoyed! There are so many sites out there that India is confusing. I can research the Shang and Egypt...but i'm stuck with India. So here are a few of my questions:

 

1) What is this "aryan invasion" theory? Why is it discredited? How did it come about?

This is a theory cooked up by the invaders (British using German scholars like Max Mueller?). The theory says that India was not very much civilized unless Aryans came down and started the civilization. Also, it says that the Vedas were written by the Aryans etc. BUT, ALL THIS THEORY IS FALSE. Please remember to discard any material if this is what it explains.

 

2) The Indus Valley civilization is part of Pakistan, but is it still considered part of Indian history? How is it related to India's history? And, most of all, what was it like?

India and Pakistan were one until around 1940. The British when the left India did the splitting with help from people like Jinnah (father of Pakistan). So, when we say Indian history it relates to BHARAT. The India was not originally even there.. the invaders who could'nt pronounce Sindh started calling it Hind and then eventually the British started to call it India.

 

3) Besides the Indus Valley civilization, what other cultures were there in India? Was hinduism even a religion back then? What kinds of worship did hindus do, and were there any other religions besides hinduism?

Hinduism was a name coined by the invaders. Originally it was called "Sanatana Dharma" meaning "Eternal Way of life/rules of life/duties of life".

Anyway, hindus did worship as specified in the Vedas which was the religious book since the beginning of life. Buddhism was indeed there ever since Buddha came.

 

Anyways, those are just a few of my questions, but I think they're the easiest. If anyone replies, they don't have to make a long novel out of it, since that would be a bit to read, but if anyone replies that could give me some kind of starting point to continue my own research.

I have only answered the basic questions. I am not sure which book to suggest but try this one..

 

ISBN : 8122405061

Title: God, Rebirth and the Vedas

 

This gives very basic information but with real good scientific proof of what is says. Once you read this, it will become to see what is true and what is not when you come across other materials.

 

[Guest guest]

 

I guess someone has to present the other side of the picture to preserve some sanity.

 

1> Aryan invasion: A murky topic created by Indian Jingo nationalists for no clear reasons. For instance, It is not clear if they are peeved at the thought of "Aryan" origin or if they dislike the "invasion" part or if they do not bother about either of these and are only interested in becoming famous by stirring up some dirt. In either event, a lot of hyperbole has been attempted by some self-styled historians (none of them are historians by background) in the hope of rewriting the history of Indian religion based on puranas (similar to fundamental christians viewing the bible as a history source). However, the current position is, all available evidence points to migration of people from west to east which is in order with written history. No compelling ewvidence has been turned up till date which would make it necessary to re-examine history. A few years ago, one gentleman named Rajaram attempted some fraud to show Indian civlizations as older than believed, but was exposed and after a few weak arguments trying to defend his claims, has now gone silent.

 

Plenty of authoritative books are available on the topic of migration of man into SE Asia, which one should take the time to read before jumping on the Indian national bandwagon to shout from rooftops that our Puranas are history books and we are billions of years old. The amusing part is according to many, this has become a test of one's patriotism - If you are not a Jingoist supporting Rajaram, Talageri and the Hindutva groups and if you are not obsessed with pushing the antiquity of India as far behind as you can, then you are not a patriot. In other words, you have been influenced & brainwashed by white trash. The patriots prefer to base their history not on facts, but on their own personal fancies.

 

On the same note, there is a tiresome ramble from rookie groups like ISKCON on how hinduism is a foreign word and how the original name of the religion is Sanatana Dharma. This is a bogus story as the name Sanatana Dharma was not at all in use as claimed until a couple of centuries ago. More silly stuff, which works well for groups like ISKCON who try to pass themselves off as a non-Hindu group.

 

2> Indus Valley civilization: If you think in terms of India & Pakistan, then you ought to take into account the fact that both countries are only ~50 years old. The Indus civilization was one of the older civlizations having trade contacts with the Mesopotamian civilization. They were well developed for their time and worshipped some Gods which were not a part of the later Vedic religion formed in NW India. The Indus Gods (Mother Goddess, horned fertility God, etc) may have been the sources of Goddess worship and Shiva worship in India, both of which are actually non-vedic. It is not known why this civilization disappeared (same as the Mayans) although there are many theories. Recent work on this topic indicates they may not have had a literary script.

 

3> Other cultures in India: Post Indus, the vedic religion came up in India, starting with the Rig-veda. This would be around 2000 to 1500 BC. Subsequently, Jainism, Buddhism and a whole bunch of other 'heretical' religions sprang up in India, most of which were available to all, unlike the Vedic system which was primarily Brahmana-centric and thus discriminating.

 

For an interesting account of the rise of other faiths in India, check out Hajime Nakamura's 'History of early Vedanta'.

 

To keep track of current happenings in academia, read the EJVS online. To read nationalist views, check out the hindutva web sites. There seem to be quite a few 'patriots' here who should be able to provide more details.

 

Cheers

 

[jay74 0]

Just give it up man, your bias is showing.

 

Just point to me one solid single evidence the Aryan Invasion Theory is valid?

Dont give this BS about linguistics, because if you twist the truth hard enough you could even find scientific miracles in the Quran.

 

Rig Veda clearly mentions Pasupati or Shiva and was found in the seals of Indus Valley Civilization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

bascially... they said that europeans came to india and wrote all the Vedas and realized god etc etc... that it wasnt the indians themselves who did it. bascially those ppl were exteremly consumed by ego to say such a thing. also "white man's burden" - that was pure pure ego showing...

 

so aryan invasion theory is another example of white ppl's ego getting out of hand.

 

it was proved wrong b/c they found artifacts of sculpters and statues of Shiva for example and they carbon dated them... and found out that these artifacts were there BEFORE the europeans actually came...

 

haha in their faces those ego-consumed idiots.

 

aryan invasion theory is just an insult to Hindus... trying to discredit the awesome truth of their religion.. typical white man thing to do.

[Guest guest]

{If you think in terms of India & Pakistan, then you ought to take into account the fact that both countries are only ~50 years old.}

 

This is typical propaganda that pakistanis usually say to feel better about themselves and their new country. India is alot older than pakistan. Pakistan & Bangladesh was carved out of what was part of India, even at that time.

 

India (including pakistan and bangladesh) was called India even when the British had it under it's empire, so not even the name is 50 years old. Even hundreds of years before it was refered to as Inde, in old English. It derived from the name Indus which the ancient Greeks had for the area surrounding the river Indus. The Ancient Persians referred to it as Sinhu. The arabs as Al-Hind.

 

Whereas pakistan just came into existence the other day.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

1. the aryan invasion theory is a theory basically saying that an Indo-European people (Aryans) came to populate northern and north western india after the fall of the indus valley civilization. There are some who say they caused the fall due to invasion (but this is not substantiated as there is abolsutely NO evidence to confirm any of this).

 

There is no doubt about it, sanskrit and latin are related. and there is a common indo-european cultural heritage. The question is where does it come from. Many Indians like to say India, just as many Europeans like to say Europe/Cacasoid Mt area.

 

Genetic studies have shown that the only two major changes in Indian DNA occured during 300 BC (Greek kingdoms set up cuz of Alexander) and 4500 BC. Nothing around the proposed 'Aryan invasion' time (1500 BC)

 

In my opinion, it doesnt sound so far fetched. An extremly prosperous Indus Valley civilization based aroud a huge river (Saraswathi) would be decimated by the lack of that river. This is what is believed to have brought the fall of the civilization around 2000 BC cuz of earthquakes which diverted the river eastwards. Their immediate neighbors (The Bactrians of Afghanistan) would naturally have come to see what happened to the prosperous trading that came from the Indus Valley area, which is no longer coming as strong.

 

Thus, they may have found an abandoned area and settled themselves, thereby bringing their INdo-European Persian culture into Pakistan and eventually spreading into North West and North and eventually all over India.

 

Much of it is disputed because of politcal reasons. Many Indians are very conservative and oppose the possibility of any other explanation than the one that is given in religious sctriputre. Others are very politically motivated, further reinforced psychologically by colonialism and 1300 years of oppression, to discredit another culture feeding "Indian" culture.

 

 

2. Indus VAlley is considered part of Indian history since Pakistan as a seperate political entity only existed for about 60 years. Its like the difference between North Korea and South Korea. At the end of the day, they are all Korean. Same situation here. At the end of the day, Indians and Pakistanis are the same ethnically. Only thing that seperates them this religion, where as in Korea it is political regime.

 

For Indus Valley details, just wikipedia Indus Valley. In short it was a civilization that prospored from about 3000 BC to 2000 BC and was the largest uniform civilization in the world at that time - Indus Valley construction is found from eastern Iran all the way west into India (Gujurat area), which is double the size of contemprary Mesopotamia and Egypt combined! They had an extremely advanced science and construction method. They knew about dental fillings and other medical thigns that others didnt know and built planned cities 2000 years before the next civilization to do the same (Rome). They also had a prosperous trade and it is believed that Meluhha mentioned in ancient Sumerian texts refers to India. Archeologists have found many Indian seals in Mesopotamia but few Mesopotamian seals in India, leading them to believe that Indus Valley is the controller of international trade during this time.

 

3. This is a little bit more complex, as the details are harder to know.

 

The cultures of India during this time are hard to tell. The Dravidians (modern South Indians) may have been the Indus Valley people. Others believe it could have been the Munda pople (modern East Indian tribal people - the ones that look like a mix Indian/South east Asian)

 

May have been many Negrito people in South India and Sri Lanka at this time. The Indus Valley's main trading partners (Bactrians) were Indo-European.

 

 

To ask a quetion like is Hinduism there then, one must first understand Hinduism. Hinduism as an organized uniform religion only existed for the past 200 years. It started with the British census of the early 1800s. Like modern American censuses that list many different religions, but like one box for Native American religion (Although there are hundreds and they are all differnet), the British listed many different religions practiced then but grouped all the many different Indian religious practices into one box called 'Hinduism'.

 

 

Back in 1500 BC, in North India, Brahmanic Vedism was probably the popular religion - based around the Vedas, caste seperatism and fire sacrifices. They worshiped nature spirits like Indra (storm), Varuna (water), Agni (fire), etc.

 

In east India (and extreme north - Kashmir, Nepal, Himalaya), early Saivism (Siva) and early Shaktism (Devi) was prevelant. The Ganga region became a heavy center for Siva worship. There must have also been many tribal/village religions in practice there as well.

 

In South India, im not sure. It depends on what people were there. If the tamil people had already gotten there, Saivism, Devi worship and village/tribal practices were probably also in place. I personally believe this to be the case. But i wasnt around in 1500 BC so i cant be sure.

[Guest guest]

 

So you actually do think -- with your sparse spare time activity of reading internet articles and wikipedia -- that you have learnt enough to challenge the work of countless historians who have spent their entire careers researching this topic. Probably you are not aware that on the other hand, the self-styled champions of the Hindutva position are not historians by profession. They most likely got bored with whatever they were doing and switched to this activity in the hope of finding quick fame through short-cut means by writing up junk. By supporting their half-baked theories, you are only making a fool of yourself. There is nothing patriotic in being idiots, in case you did not know.

 

This "blame the British" syndrome is based on pure nonsense. If the British conspired to gloss over history, then you should have seen this effect everywhere as they were ruling the entire world. You would be reading history where man did not originate in Africa, but in downtown London. The pyramids were not built by Egyptians, but by a team of visiting British architects commissioned by the queen. Ditto with the Mayan civilization, the Great Wall of China and the Indus civilization. Why did the British not try to "gloss over" history in these cases? Why conspire only in the case of Vedic origin? How does this make them superior? I fail to see the link. As science says man originally came from Africa, does this make the Africans superior to the rest of the world?

 

Now compare this with what ISKCON claims as history (inspired by the Bhagavata Purana). The whole world was Vedic for billions of years and with time, things changed. That is to say there was a time when people in places like Poland and Alaska were eating idlis with coconut chutney for breakfast and spitting paan on sidewalks. Evidence? All available evidence has been successfully hidden by scientists conspiring around the world. How sensible does this sound?

 

Ask yourself this -- what is your problem with Aryan migration? There were no countries during that time and so no one moved into or out of India as the concept of India did not exist at that time. There was no border where visas were being regulated. Do you think man originated in India independently? What are your reasons for not accepting that man came out of Africa? I can bet you will not find a single reason which is not politically motivated.

 

To close, there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of Aryan migration into SE Asia. You will of course, have to look beyond internet articles to learn the details of how this theory is developed. FYI, it goes way beyond philology, which you will find out by reading proper sources. Try reading some books on Indology and migration of man into and through Asia. Obviously as this will take a lot of time, I for one, am in no rush to receive a response from you.

 

Cheers

 

[jay74 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There was no border where visas were being regulated. Do you think man originated in India independently? What are your reasons for not accepting that man came out of Africa? I can bet you will not find a single reason which is not politically motivated.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

 

 

Please reread my post, I have never said man orginated in India. Orgination of man from Africa is a proven fact.

 

Recent Genetic research by renowned genetist Stephen Oppenheimer has invalidated the Aryan Invasion Theory. In his latest book The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa, he has argued that based on Genetic research of Y Chromosome and mtDNA that entire non-african population came out of single group from Africa. They followed a coastal route through Yemen and finally to India. From India after a brief halt they populated entire planet. Root of all Genes was the M168 in the paternal side and L3 in the maternal side. By taking statistically valid DNA samples Oppenheimer came to the following conclusions.[4]

 

On the maternal side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which Oppenheimer labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely born in India the birthplace of Nasreen is uncertain tentatively placed by Oppenheimer in southern Iran or Baluchistan. Manju and Rohani (should be Rohini), Nasreen's most prolific daughter both born in India are the progenitors of all non African peoples.

 

The story on the paternal side is a lot more complex. M168 had three sons, of which Seth was the most important one. Seth had five sons named by Oppenheimer as Jahangir, H, I, G and Krishnna. Krishnna born in India turned out to be the most prolific of Seth's sons. Krishnna through his son Ho, grandson Ruslan through Polo, and great grandson M17 through Ruslan, played a major role in the peopling of South Asian, East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia.

 

In summary migration happened but it happened in the reverse. He makes a point that all physiological changes in people are all environmental. Coastal people from Tamil Nadu as they moved north became lighter in color and thier complexion changed. That is why North Indians are of lighter complexion. As these same people moved further north into the frozen tundra they became white with blonde hair and blue eyes. This is a ground breaking work

[Guest guest]

I checked the Bradshaw web site (Nice graphics, btw).

 

I fail to see what this has to do with the Aryan migration problem we are discussing. The website indicates the movement of man into India via Afghanistan once. Then the Indian population was destroyed. India was again repopulated, but this time in 2 directions - one from Afghanistan again and the other from the South (via the branch which orignally moved from India further SE).

 

But all this is some 50000 years ago. Where is the alleged movement of man from India to Europe around the timeframe of 2000 BC, which is the topic of discussion? Oppenheimer's DNA research ends with 8000 BC. Secondly, even among the earlier routes of migration into Europe, no line is orignating from India like you claim. The line that goes into Europe originates from somewhere in the middle east or north Africa.

 

Has Oppenheimer taken archaeological and philological evidence into consideration to arrive at a holistic picture or has he ignored them? In any event, the nice graphic display on the Bradshaw website ends with 8000 BC, which is way before the time we are interested in, so we have no way of knowing what kind of evidence he has taken into consideration.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

[jay74 0]

Post deleted by Admin5

[Guest guest]

So now I have to buy the book and read it. You could have done better to mention this right at the beginning instead of pointing people to that useless website which has no relevance to the discussion in hand. Your copy paste lines above do not exactly summarize the contents of his book either.

 

Moving on, to keep an open mind, maybe Oppenheimer has something, maybe he does not. His work however is recent and has to undergo extensive critical examination before it can be taken seriously by Academia. I say extensive because he is making serious allegations against current history and the general axiom in science is "extraordinary claims need to be substantiated by extraordinary evidence". Until that happens, the current position of Aryan Migration will remain unchanged. In other words, Aryans did migrate from Europe into India as you will find in any history book. I am sure you understand how it works. 2 and 2 will be four until someone comes along who can show it is actually five.

 

His dismissal of philology as useless and his general snooty tone does not augur well for the future of his work, but that remains to be seen. I am also curious to know who took the trouble of excavating 50000 yeard old strata in South India to determine human presence there as he claims.

 

I am checking up on this & will have hopefully some more information on this topic real soon.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

----------------

In other words, Aryans did migrate from Europe into India as you will find in any history book.

----------------

 

While your principles may be right, the fact is Aryans did NOT migrate from EUROPE. That is not what most history books say, and if they do, that is because it is an old edition or based on an old edition.

 

Most believe a ccommon indo-euro ancestor lived in central asia and migrated both west (into Europe) and south (into Persia).

 

They are believed to be the people living in Bactria (Afghanistan/Iran) during the Indus Valley Civilization time (3rd millenium BC).

 

After the fall of the IVC, the Bactrians are believed to be the Indo-European people that moved into the Pakistan area, eventually occupying vast parts of the North Indian plains during the 2nd and 1st millenium BC.

 

These people that moved into India are NOT European. There may be an old European mindset during the 19th century that wants to make the Indian civilization subservient to Europe's. The reason they felt this way towards India and not other placed like Africa or South America is because of the obvious link between the two cultures. It is a known fact that Indian Sanskritic culture is related to European directly, where as South American and African cultures are related only due the fact that all humans came from one.

 

This is an outdated mode of thinking and I doubt that most serious scientists today think this way, but the problem is most people today get their facts from older works, which are all biased to begin with. One has to work with what one is given in life. For a 21st century historian, they have to work with the basic knowledge of the older historians, particularly those of the 20th century, which based itself on historians from the 19th century.

 

So unfortuntealy, the remnants of thaat thought are still alive, but i dont think most people today are out to screw the history of India.

 

As it is though, most modern historians will tell you there is absolutely NO evidence of any invasion by any warrior tribes or anything like that, rather just a migration of people who no longer received goods from their long time trading partners.

[Guest guest]

Egotism was what Got ABRAHM into trouble.

 

you nned to read BIBLE verse this:

 

Old Testament (used mostly by catholics and jews) of Bible:

 

GENESIS 11

"1 At one time the whole earth had the same language and vocabulary".

 

Which is VEDIC times, when all people (all races and nationalities that exist today) lived in PANGAEA state of earth; Menaing the earth was not divided into 7 continents at that time.

 

Genesis 11

"2 As people migrated *****from the ****east, they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there"

 

Then when ABRAHM aka BRAHMA (a rishi of Brahma line of Trinity) speaking hebrew (which was discovered originally by sanskrit speaking RISHI Brighu) went out WEST w his followers to start his own religion in the land of SHINAR aka BABYLONIA.

 

So basically if you really want to say that most of the vedas were a combined historical notes of east and west, that would be correct. They were in ORAL recited form first, recited mostly by sanskrit speaking RISHIs who secretly held them together. They perhaps wrote them down in leaves, clay tablets, or tree barks, etc before using PAPYRUS in SUmeria or carved them using Deities and stories.

 

But the point is this.

 

There was "NO" westerners who gave vedas to hindus, as they could not recite or speak that language after Peleg's time.

 

ADAM thru TERAH in OT of BIBLE is what we call VEDIC period.

 

There were rishis who acted as spiriutal preceptors or guides for people who emerged.

 

PREVEDIC TIMEs is when ATHARVA VEDA started to exist. you see, you have take RIG VEDA as the last and Atharva as the beginning. Atharva means HEAD.

 

Head comes first and RIG comes last.

 

Atharva in Satya Yuga, SAMA Ved also in SATya yuga, YAJUR shukla and Yajur Krsna in the 3 and 4th yuga combination, Rig in the Kali yuga!!!

 

If you read RIG Veda, there are a lot of references to SOMA or drink used in worship which actually fits the ROMAN Catholic religious beliefs.

 

It was during TERAH or Yagnavalkya Vagasaneya's time (Briha Upanishad, fifth Brahmana or chapter) that all purans were completely recited by Loma or ROMAHARSHANA to his people.

 

Purans were used for them to teach about hindu phil and dharma along w the facts on Creation by LORD VISHNU.

 

What you see as "SHIVA" and PARVATI" creating is symbolized by "LiNGHA" symbolism denotes only "evolutionary creation".

Because in Bhaghavatum there were 840,000,000 species of life forms being listed as they existed before the dulge or NOAH"s ark (BALARAMA AVATAR time).

 

In Vedanta Sutra also they talked about "adding one drop of water to an ocean does not make it any bigger" or something like that.

 

which implies that there was nothing new added to existing vedic phil or culture from outside. It was all there before the Invaders came in back in350BCE from west, when those persians and other remaining hindus from Ancient mesopotemia got pushed or driven out completely from that region.

 

Trading between sumeria and Indus valley existed and cultural exchange as well.

 

Atharva Veda and pre-Vedic time (there were about 35 Hindu Rishis) listed people who lived before ADAM/EVE were even placed in G of EDEN.

 

Now those purans were originally compiled when people were there before Adam and Eve, and then they began to tell those stories to people of ADAM and EVE times to keep the VEDIC culture going. White race emerged as a last sect of people and so they were really not well versed in sanskrit and also other languages like LATIN, PERSIAN, HIbru, YiddhisH, came into existence after LORD KRSNA's time, back in 6,428BCE.

 

Continental drift, formation of 7 continents, flood, dispersion of people etc were indicated first by "insightful Rishis" as VEDICAL Predictions (some times as dreams or nightmares of great seers) before those events actually occurred.

 

That is the reason all those languages were called INDO

this and INDO that.

 

INDO-Sanskrit

Arya=Persian mostly.

European=mostly white.

 

HAMITES=followers of LORD RAMA, the very first NOBLE ARYA tribal king.

SHEMITES=Followers of LORD KRSNA, the very first KURU TRIBAL arya tribal king descent.

 

HAmites and Shemites got into major power struggles and all kings after LORD RAMA wanted those people to worship them and that led to "PHARAOHS" slaving, ill treatment of people. By the time LORD RAMA GOT exiled in VINDHYA PARBHAT, things changed a lot.

 

KURUS who lived below the line of KURUKSHTRE (geographically were all thrown into very HOT climatic conditions by drift, flood etc, that they became dark as in like AFRICANs. So thE EPIC depicted LORD KRSNA as A DARK

person, though LORD KRSNA was a memebre of SHAMITE or SHEMITE arya or NOBLE DEITY.

 

SHEMITES were all hindus up until ABRAHM's group started jewish religion by circumcission and seting up a covenant w VAYU aka Yawa.

 

IT is all in the Rig vedas, the last Veda to be recited (NOt first) as hindus kept notes from very very long time .

 

Atharva veda has notes that may explain also as to why

Christopher Columbus thought he reached INDIA, when he discovered America back in 1492CE. Romans used to live with hindus in Pangaea state and their canons or apocrypa has a lot of stories or evidence (written up later w some modifications back in 800BCE or later).

 

Greek language came from LATIN speaking group, but first LATIN came from VisvaMitra. Two of his followers were AHURA MAZDA and SunahShefa.

 

AHura MAZDA (like in MAZDA car from Japan) went to Japan to set up his tent on Zoransterian relgion (ZEN for short) and their flag still today had that RED SUN or DAATSUN in Japan.

 

SuNahaSepa aka ShunaShefa started the concept of SUNNAH for muslims down in Egypt region right side of NILE river then in SUDAN part before continental drift. Peleg's time (OT, BIBLE) it also said that those people, started to fight and had become divisive.

 

GENESIS 10:25~ Eber had two sons. One was named Peleg, for during his days the ****earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan".

 

THe earth was divided by languages during this time first;

As VEDAS said, because of ADHARMA (stemming from conflicts), DELUGE occurred as indicated later on in the same bible during Noah's ARK time.

 

Noah, the character in Bible has 3 sons:

NOAH-BALARAM AVATAR.

HAM=RAMA

SHEM-KRSNA

 

and he lived for 950 years, when the flood covered all nations in Pangeas state of mother earth.

 

MATSYA puran has a story about FLood and deluge predictions.

 

So to imply that those europeans gave hindus all VEDAS or were bringing elements of this great Religion is like a DAY LIGHT ROBBERY. Not entirely true.

 

They perhaps were involved in many events w hindus, esp if you look at INDRA as a ROMAN control figure aka Pharaoh, rich loaded w cows and milk, soma or alcohol drinks, VARUNA as a GREEK king or Pharaoh, who suppressed many KURU HINDUS and SHEMITES (from SHAM or LORD KRSNA's times), it will all fall into place in this puzzle.

 

Keep reading purans and see how prevedic times, Native american indians aka INCAS and MAYAs (MAYA concept came from that time under ADVAITA phil) when tney took off to go west with ENOCH or Brahma maharishi or follower of LORD BRAHMA.

 

BRAHMA was just a custodian of VEDIC facts and figures or info only. He was not a Creator, but RUDRA aka SHIVA was. VISHNU CREATED both RUDRA and BRAHMA at the same time.

 

Brahma followers who went west w ABRAHM became jews only. Sunahasepa's followers already formed their JHWH or JEHOWAH who was later to be known as ALLAH.

 

Linguistically if you look at them, they are all connected to ancient hindu culture and civilizations. There are notes still found in bible that reflected their conditioed souls from past.

 

RACISM, bigotry, denial of rights/priviledges to all people started w BIBLE as KURUS or dark skinned people were slaved as shemites. ABRAHM and his gentile hindus were among them.

 

THE CITIEs w hindu name of RAM still exists in ME. ROMULU became ROMULUS for ROmans who left Hindus when Enoch 1 disappeard w native american tribes to west. ROME was built w LORD RAMA aka ROM only.

 

Luwians were all TELUGU people who were known as "ITALIANS" of the EAST!!!

 

more later.

 

got to go now.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

with these ppl. You don't have to prove the theory wrong, because no one has proved it right, or else it wouldn't be called a theory anymore but a fact. Since ait and amt are called theories and NOT facts, there is no reason to take them seriously or even spend time and effort disputing them; for why break your head over theories. Tomorrow, a madman could propagate another theory that we are all martians, are you going to spend all the time and energy in proving that we are NOT martians instead of rejecting the nonsensical claim with disdain?

 

If someone backs ait or amt or whaterver, the burden of proof rests on their shoulders to prove the theory, failing which their theory ought to be discarded. So far, no one has proved ait or amt (or it wouldn't be a theory anymore), so there is no need for anyone to disprove it, in fact, it would be impossible to prove a negative proposal, which is exactly what these people are asking gullible hindus to do. Once you 'disprove' ait, they will start amt and once you disprove that, they'll invent ctbt, btft and what else not to have fun watching hindus waste their lives doing the impossible: to prove a negative proposal. Watch out for these traps.

[Guest guest]

Oh, thanks alot everyone! I was really worried i'd be getting some wackos trying to prove the Bible was part of india's history...yadda yadda...i've heard of that theory, don't much care for it...its impossible if you logically look at the separate beliefs anyway. I don't want to argue about it, because i don't think you can convince such people otherwise.

 

But as for "guest", with such a long post, first of all:

 

(by the way, the rest of you can feel free to scroll down to the end of this post, as it is a loooooonnng one)

 

-Catholics and Jews are not the ones who "mostly" use the Bible. I read the Bible every night, and that means mostly the OT. And as for the Jews, they don't call their scriptures "the Bible". It is the Torah, etc.

 

-Abram/Abraham is NOT SPELLED "Abrahm". You are missing a vowel in an attempt to make it an anagram.

 

-Mohommad and Allah are in no way related to God, Jesus, and the Bible. Allah was originally one of thousands of idols worshipped in the city of Mecca. When Mohommad was thrown out of Mecca, he went to go live with some desert tribes, and they believed in his god and helped him go and conquer Mecca. Allah was the name Mohammad chose for his singular deity, but before that it was an idol of the "moon god", which had 3 daughters known as the "winds of Allah", or some other such nonsense. Please get your facts straight.

 

-I have heard of pangaea. Let's say i don't know much about it. Could mankind have existed on pangaea? Possibly. Maybe not. After all, "A thousand years to Me is a day, and a day is a thousand years"--that might mean mankind never existed on pangaea.

 

-You appear to be misusing some texts of the Bible. For example, you state that because Eber named one son Peleg because of the world being divided, then that must mean that there must have been multiple languages. Since when does "division" always imply a division of languages? The time before the Flood was very violent. It is possible that violence also accounts for the post-Flood divisions.

 

-If you want to get into the Flood (i don't really), its very complicated, lots of stuff to bring up, and i don't like long posts. However, if you are going by the Biblical Flood, then a) it must have been pre-ice age, since the Native Americans came along the Bering Bridge with a Flood story, and the fact that the natives were alive there at all, and b) although it is possible that some people, other than Noah, might have known about the Flood coming (highly unlikely), we'd never truly know because Noah & his family alone survived. As such, from a Christian perspective your assertion that others knew about the Flood is highly suspect in its inspiration.

 

-And furthermore, the Tower of Babel is where the Bible talks about people previously having only one language. Since when does the Tower of Babel exist in Peleg's time? If that were so, the Bible probably would have said so directly. The Tower of Babel was made after the Flood, when man had grown so numerous that he forgotten most of his history, or else he would have remembered Eve and the serpent with "and ye shall become gods...", and not attempted to do the same thing with a Tower.

 

The Tower of Babel pre-dates Abraham. Abraham lived in Ur, in Babylonia. This cannot be where the Tower of Babel is, i think, because God "scattered the over the Earth". The Tower of Babel has NO RELATION with Abraham. Abraham is WHOLE GENERATIONS LATER.

 

Abraham did not follow "brahma" or whatever. He had no followers! He went off by himself with his nephew, Lot.

 

-"Jehovah" is not the name of God!! It is a false interpretation of YHWH, or the original hebrew of it. "Jehovah" is a english-style word mistranslated to mean God. You're as bad as a jehovah's witness!

 

-Enoch did not go west to live with Mayans! Enoch "was not" because "God took him"! Where did you come up with THAT?! You're as bad as a mormon!

 

-Adam was the first man--if you are following the Bible, then there can be no "pre-vedic times", or else there would be men NOT descended from Adam, and anyway those people would have been wiped out BY THE FLOOD.

 

Furthermore, despite the list of genealogies and "years of death" of Adam's people, we have no way of telling what they once thought a "year" was. Thus, Adam could have really only lived to the age of seventy (unlikely because of God's decree of the limit of mankind years), or else he could have lived for thousands of REAL years. There is no real idea of how long mankind existed before the Flood started the rest of (validated) history. Man might never have existed on pangaea at all, and this is indeed a Biblically defensible statement, despite what many Christians say. I don't want to get into that, so if you really want to know, then ask (please nicely, i hate fighting).

 

-The vedas of hindus are not considered true scripture by Christians! Christians do not care what the vedas say about any pre-Adam people, because to Christians, the vedas are man-made, just like to you the Bible is man-made.

 

-God and vishnu or whatever cannot be the same, because of how God is described and vishnu is described. There are too big of gaps between these two deities for them to be one. One of them is false.

 

Guest, what are you trying to prove? Your writing is difficult to read and the most I get is that you're attempting to tie the Bible with the hindu vedas or whatever. That doesn't work. The two systems are so unlike one another that either one or the other must be mostly false.

 

If you are going to comment on my religion, and i am a servant of the Christ, please do some research about it before preaching to me.

 

The reason i am trying to stay out of hindu religous things is because i do not know much about hinduism. It is annoying to have someone blabber about your deeply held beliefs when they don't know what they're talking about. So if any of you want to talk about things such as hinduism, i will HAVE to believe what you say, so please make sure it's right!

 

I will engage anyone in talk about my Faith, but only if you ask. Remember this is a hindu site, and i don't want people screaming at me. Besides, the Bible declares that those who seek God will find Him. No matter what i do or say, if you're not seeking God, it will not help. So if you want to debate me about religion (it might be better in a different forum...) you have to ask. Otherwise i'm going to ignore any wrong statements unless their blatant.

 

=====================

 

sorry about all that...

 

jay47, narayanadasa, especially Shiv, Guest 2, Ratheesh & Bhimasena, thank you ever so much! But if you don't mind...

 

Do you have any idea what this "Cemetery H culture" is? Is it the only culture that sprung up after the demise of the "Indus River Valley Civilization"? I'm becoming interested in that, but can't find much on it. Serves me right for jumping into a part of history i never even thought about before, huh?

 

And what IS it with all this division with all of you? Pakistanis, "white trash", british conspiracy, etc, etc...

 

Y'all sound just like election time over here in America.

 

[moderator's note: edited to keep page on screen]

[Guest guest]

i dont have much time, i have to catch a flight from JFk in a couple hours. im going to INda for the next 6 weeks.

 

But without getting into too much, may i just comment on csomething.....

 

you said God and Vishnu are not the same because of descriptions. one must be different.

 

They are the same. It is the same entity being described. the descriptions differ because different people wrote it.

 

For example, Your mother is the same person as your mother's employer's employee. Yet if I were to ask both your mom's boss and you do describe your mother, probability is the descriptiuons would be different. They would be in accordance with the relationship between the two of you or between employer/employee and the aspects of your mother that would be described are different. Yet your mother is still the same person. She is sstill your mother and still is the employee in the situation.

 

In the same way, God/Allah/VIshnu/Brahman/Siva, whatever one wants to call the Supreme Being, we are all paying respects to the same supreme being that birthed this universe and makes life exist.

 

The words we use are different because the languages we speak are different.

 

The descriptions are different becasue we describe what is pertinant to our cultural situations. Yet the descriptions are of the same being.

 

Vishnu and God are the same. God is a christian all-emcompassing term for the Supreme Deity, Father of all existance.

 

Vishnu is a Hindu term that describes God's existing aspect of His natre.

 

By believing that the beings we worship are different, that is what keeps us locked in turmoil, confusion about other rleigions, cultural tension and even war.

 

One must understand taht the God i worship by calling him Vishnu and going Vedic poojas is the same God that you worship calling him God and attending church and praying.

 

It is only two different ways to appraoch God. Neither are more right than the other. Both are ways for specific cultures to pay their respective respects.

 

If God is our loving Father and Mother, He will naturally understand why one calls him Allah, why one calls him God, why one calls him Wankantanka, why one calls him Yahweh, why one calls him Vishnu, Siva, Brahman, etc, etc, etc.

 

Hopefully, when i get back from India in march, i will see this forum being more enlightened and not fight the way this good woman has pointed out.

 

God is one. There is no such thing as a false god. Let us embrace all the many different ways to worship him without being jealous and selfish and arrogant, only trying to better our concept of God.

 

Be good people, I'llsee u when i get back .

[Guest guest]

This is why i didn't want to bring any of this up. But, anyway...

 

Let's think about what you have just said, for a moment. You say:

 

God = Vishnu = Allah

 

You say "we all worship the same God". Oh, really? Well, did you know that Satanists believe Satan is a god? They say they're worshipping a god! Does that make God and Satan the same? They can't be! Satan is described as an evil, malicious person, and an angel, not a god; whereas the Christian God is a Triune Being, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and Who avidly denounces Satan. They cannot be the same person.

 

Let me take an example of what i mean. Let us suppose that this statement is true:

 

-------

SOME kind of Eternal Being created mankind. Mankind knew Who this Eternal Being was. Over time, they slowly forgot, which led to the diversity in beliefs about God that we all have today.

-------

 

Sounds right, doesn't it?

 

But these differences in religions are not because of differences in *perspective*. Any differences which arise are because people have FORGOTTEN. As such, some religions will know more about God than others. If that is true, then some religions are not as good as others, if they can be said to be good at all.

 

Let me provide you with another example. You are giving out the "PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE" argument. An example of personal perspective is thus:

 

Suppose you want to find out about a person named Jane. So you go to two of Jane's friends and ask about her. One friend says, "Jane is a very fat person"--yet the other friend says, "Jane is a very thin person."

 

How can this be? Personal perspective. To one person, Jane appears fat. To the other, she looks thin. These differences are reconcilable in making Jane the same person.

 

(Of course, if how Jane appears is really so elastic, then you could refer to her as either fat or thin as you desire. Likewise, if God were elastic, then you could simply make up what you want Him to be as you desire. This is turn makes God more of a fantasy than a reality, but i digress.)

 

However, this is not my view. Let us suppose that you wanted to find out about a fellow named Jack. So you go to two of his friends, and ask them about Jack.

 

One friend says, "Oh, Jack! He's my pet goldfish, and he's an albino, so he's got white scales. He loves fish food, and once I left him out of the water too long, so he nearly suffocated."

 

But the other friend says: "Oh, Jack! He's my pet dog. He gets black fur all over the place and I feed him table scraps all the time. He can't swim worth a damn, and once he almost drowned."

 

Obviously, nobody in their right mind would say that these two people are talking about the SAME "Jack". They each must be referring to a "Jack", but, obviously, they don't both mean the SAME Jack, unless Jack happens to be a hybrid dog/fish, fur/scaled, lungless monstrosity. If THAT were so, then these two people would have started out by describing Jack THAT way, and not only describe part of him.

 

Don't you see? The God of Christians and Hindus cannot be the same. Although it might have started out with all religions being one, with all the forgetfulness creating different "perspectives" about God, then one of our views must be wrong. The differences are too pronounced for them to be reconcilable logically.

 

I have heard that hindus have thousands of gods--Christianity says there is only One. The salvation messages of our religions are too different to BOTH be the same. Christianity talks about one life, with a Savior to save us from an eternal Hell. Hinduism talks about karma and reincarnation, earning your way into Nirvana (spell?). By contrast, the Christian believes that man is so corrupt, and God so holy, that man can never save himself (which is why we needed Jesus...).

 

Imagine the chaos if both belief systems were right at the same time. What about reincarnation? Do you not have to be reincarnated if you're a Christian? Where does a Christian's bad karma go? Where does the hindu's sin go? IF BOTH BELIEFS WERE RIGHT, THEN ALL PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WOULD BE GOING TO HELL! Nobody can be an adherent to more than one religion. In fact, religions such as Christianity roundly condemn this.

 

The world is simple: there IS an ultimate truth. God is Whoever He is. One of us is wrong. The other is right. You can believe whatever you want. I will believe whatever i want. When we die, we will figure out which of us was right (or more right, that is, since it is impossible for someone to know everything about God).

 

Since WHEN does the above imply division? Must we both believe in the SAME God? How does believing in different gods truly make us any different? How would believing in a different God create strife during our earthly life? True, there have been holy wars. But man has been killing his brother for millenia, and i highly doubt ceeding religious differences would ever put a stop to it. Personally, i believe religion in war has always been used for nothing but a convienient excuse.

 

We are made of the same substance. I, being a Christian, believe that we are all sons (and daughters, as in my case) of Adam. That is my belief. If you don't believe the same thing, that does not mean that my belief is somehow altered or lessened due to yours. You are still a relative of mine, no matter how our differences may show. For you to try and dillute our differences is not helpful, but instead could be taken as trying to interfere in my own Christian beliefs. Of course, i do not take it that way, but there are many people who do. You cannot fault them, but simply said they are only reacting badly to this kind of retoric because it is, somewhat, a manner of controlling them.

 

I am trying to be nice about this. The statement "we all believe in the same god, not matter what religion we are in" is the same thing as saying, "The Christian God is a LIAR", since our God Himself tells us that He is the only way. The Bible tells people continually that God is Who He is. God describes Himself as "I AM WHO I AM". People cannot change Him, and if you do, then you aren't worshipping the real Him. In fact, i am almost certain that every religion, including Hinduism, has a statement that says: "we are the true religion. We are the only way to Heaven", because otherwise, very few people would have chosen that religion.

 

Everyone joins a particular religion because they believe that it is the right one, not because they believe that it's one of many right ones. I am a Christian because i think that is the right way. You believe likewise in your own faith.

 

Niahra

[Guest guest]

After reviewing what i said about "Guest", i have found i have broken the 9th Commandment, in saying such things as "you sound like a mormon", etc., which are ad hominem attacks. For that i appologize.

 

Despite my over-exuberance, and harsh language, this is what i was trying to say:

 

-You do not have substantial knowledge about my faith, but instead are misusing it to further your own gains.

 

-Much of what you said was highly incorrect. You need to do some research about what actual Christians think, and not just what some people (who are NOT Christians) think about the Scriptures...which by the way are not THEIR Scriptures.

 

-People who do not know much about another faith should do well to not try and comment about it. It will likely insult many people and lead to hard feelings.

 

-You really need to go and look at what the Bible really says, without having the goggles of "all this somehow fits into MY religion" on. What you end up doing in that case is perverting the text, which is why i reacted so strongly. Not all religions agree. You can't claim that both the Bible and your scriptures are wholly true, because there are ultimate contradictions; such as Adam being the first man, according to the Bible, and your attempt to claim that hindus have some ancestors that existed before Adam (which, by the way, in the Christian texts would have meant that they all died in the Flood and cannot be your ancestors, anyway).

 

Not everything proves your religion true. As a Christian, i don't look at mormonism and say, "Well, some of this proves my religion is true." One religion cannot prove that ANOTHER religion is true. All one religion can do is stand up for itself, or else disprove itself through internal contradiction and/or un-workable principles. Even if i can disprove another religion using that religion's own philosophy, i cannot use that religion's failure to build up my own religion. Every religion must stand up for itself.

[jay74 0]

Niahra,

 

Iam a rationalist, I dont beleive what is in the scriptures just because it is in the scriptures, I try to rationally ascertain what makes sense and what does not.

 

But let me tell you this Hinduism is the only religion which is a man's genuine effort to know the ultimate truth. Hindu Philosphies have changed over time and will continue to evolve.

 

Last thing I would ever want to do is to get associated with abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam. My mind just revolts just thinking of the idea of Heaven and Hell.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well, i can see your point.

 

This is why i do not like bringing up these things. I did not mean for this to be a discussion about religion. I wanted history. If religion was somehow brought up in the course of it, i wanted mere historical facts, not manipulations.

 

I merely had to reply to some base attacks on my own religion, because i am commanded to do so.

 

You think that hinduism is the best search for truth. Everyone always thinks the same about their own religions. You wouldn't be a hindu if you didn't think so (by the way, i googled "hindu" and "hinduism", and i got a site that told me the two aren't the same thing. I always assumed "hindu" was a shortening of the word "hinduism"--how is it that are they different?). Likewise, i would not be a Christian if i did not think that Christ was the Savior. We all believe what we believe because we think it's the best. Obviously, it makes no sense for us to believe what we believe otherwise!

 

Christianity is also rational. Despite what many people say about us, we Christians use our wits just as much as everyone else (and, i think, in some cases more, while in other cases, less). The difference, quite simply, is the way that we are structured. The Bible provides structure.

 

According to Christian belief, things were perfect at the beginning, and then people lost their way. The universe began a slow deterioration that continues to the present. Thusly, according to our thought, any "evolution" of Christianity would PERVERT our Scriptures, not help them. Between you and me there is a fundamental break in thought: you believe the world gets better--i believe we are all going to Hell in a handbasket.

 

Why flinch at mere association? I don't flinch at being associated with hindus, or with mormons, or with the so-called "abrahamic" religion of islam. How do you think i got on this site, and was not afraid to ask about your history? "Guilt by Association" is a fallacy in logic, if i recall correctly.

 

One of my favorite quotes is "Even a wrong idea can be useful, as long as you know why it's wrong". In school, children are taught that long ago people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. Why are they taught that? Because although it is a wrong idea, we now KNOW why it's wrong, so it is useful for them to learn why. Even learning about wrong religions can strengthen yours. As i before said, no religion can prove another religion true. BUT, if one religion proves itself wrong, then it can prove other religions MORE true.

 

For example, suppose i wanted to validate my own beliefs. I couldn't look at mormonism and say, "Well, this is wrong, so my religion must be true!" It is true that mormons are wrong. But just because *they* are wrong doesn't mean that *i* am right. Why, any dozens of religions out there could be true, and just because one religion is proved false doesn't mean that any single other one is therefore true. It just makes all the others MORE true, since they, at the very least, have so-far stood up to scrutiny. This is why someone must keep researching about religions, all of his life.

 

Simply, stubbornly crossing your arms and declaring, "I already KNOW what the truth is", doesn't work. How do you *know* what truth is? As the old saying goes, "you have to learn to cry before you can learn to laugh"--In order to know what is true, you have to first know what is false!

 

Take an example:

When children are young, and they live in America, they complain about having to eat their peas at dinner. Their parents tell them, "you should be happy you have peas to eat. People in Africa are starving"--but they don't care or understand what is meant by this. THEY have never been starving. Because they don't know what its like to be really hungry, they can't appreciate how good they have.

 

This is just like a man who is always happy but never knowing it. This man has never cried--how does he know what it is like to be sad? But if he doesn't have something to contrast his good fortune with, he will never be truly HAPPY, even though he has nothing to be SAD about. Without knowing how to cry, we can't know how to laugh.

 

Likewise, unless you've been lied to, how do you know what the truth is? You and I are not God. We do not know everything. The best we can do is search out what is truth and what is not. The same goes for religion. We must be able to find out which religions are wrong, in order for our own to be eventually proven true.

 

Seek out lies! Look at them from the liar's point of view. Question them, prod them! If they are lies, then they will fall. But if they are truth, then there is nothing weak about them. If a man says, "I can fly", and then can't do so when asked, he is a liar. But if when asked to prove it he goes soaring away in the sky, he was telling the truth, because he was able to back it up. "Seek the truth, and the truth will set you free..."

 

God gave you a mind. Even if God is really Vishnu, this fact doesn't change. You even claim to be a rationalist. Well, surprising or not, so am i. I believe logic was placed specifically in the human mind, so that we could go out and seek God. True, it has limits. But for some (i would hope for my own) it does work reasonably well.

 

As for the thought that you can make it on your own, with no guidance whatsoever from any sort of scripture, why then are you even a hindu? You must have some sort of structure, even to ascertain what makes sense! From whence does the profile of sensible and not sensible come from? There must be some authority in everyone's life to tell them, "well, this makes sense, but this doesn't". I refer back to the flying man. In the instance that he can't back up his claim, WHY does it make sense that he's truly lying? There must have been some authority in our pasts that gave us some idea of what "making sense" is. For you, it is your hindu scriptures. For me, it is the Bible.

 

Imgaine a world without authorities! I could say, "I am a god and lightning shoots out of my butt." And some people, having no authority to rely on, would simply believe me. Others would not believe me, not because i don't rationally make sense, but rather because they simply don't want to. In another instance, i could say, "If you jump off a high cliff, you will go 'splat' on the ground"--and some people would believe me. Others, without an authority to judge by otherwise, wouldn't, and they'd all fall to their deaths.

 

Everyone needs some kind of authority to base what makes sense and what doesn't. Some authorities are less true than other authorties--in which case the person following the authority is in error.

 

Take a picture in a magazine of a giantic space shuttle. How do you know how big the shuttle is? You can't, unless there is a *person* in the picture, who's presence can give you an idea of scale. This is what the authority does for mankind: it gives us scale. It lets us determine, through its own right-ness, how correct something is--or is not.

 

As for Heaven and Hell, i myself ponder over this. I struggle with them often. How many good people go to Hell?, i ask myself. Why does God, Who will save some people, send others there? Is that fair?

 

First of all, when i sought out the answer to this question, i found that Hell wasn't made for PEOPLE; that is, it wasn't originally made to house human beings. It was made for Satan and his cohorts, who together are responsible for every evil that has ever existed in the history of existence. It was supposed to be THEIR punishment.

 

According to Christianity, however, the devil and his angels are very powerful...so powerful, in fact, that they could drag all of us there if he wanted to. But, however, at least for the moment, he can't. Why? God is more powerful. God sent Jesus out to gather in those who want to go with Him. Those who remain behind, who say, "Jeeze, fellow! I don't know Who You are!", are the ones left over. It is the determined Satan that will be dragging people to Hell. My God is a loving God: He will not force people who hate Him to remain with Him for eternity.

 

You brought this subject of Hell up, remember. I don't overly want to be lecturing you about it (which i feel like i am), but i have a question:

 

Do hindus really have NO Hell?

 

Aside from history, that's what i'd really like to know.

 

Secondly, Heaven and Hell are part of the universe. In fact, they make sense. For example, think of the criminal, who, all through his life, has killed and murdered and raped, and was never caught and punished for any of it: neither was he ever sorry, but he enjoyed every second of it. Are you saying that such a person goes to Heaven, where someone who followed all the rules, and fed orphans and starving people, also goes? Is such a criminal going to share eternity with the woman he repeatedly raped and stabbed to death? She did nothing wrong. Nothing he can do will make it up to her; she's dead, in possibly the most horrific way. I would even venture that having to spend an eternity with him would turn her Heaven into a Hell.

 

We can't all go to Heaven. Some of us--and, in my own religion, ALL of us--simply don't deserve to.

[ajit12 0]

Jay 74,

Get your facts right.Shiva as such, or as Mahadeva, is not alluded to in proper Vedas. The Rigveda, however, frequently mentions a brown complexioned sun-like brilliant and gold-like glowing animal-skin-wearing entity by the name of Rudra, or Ishan, who, as per the Rigvedic description, is synonymous of a violent non-Aryan jungle or tribal god capable of subduing, by his mighty arrows, even the most wild of animals. He did not hesitate even to kill human beings and sought delight in such destruction. Hence, the Rigveda is somewhat critical of his wildness and invokes him for not destroying his devotees, their ancestors, offspring, relatives and horses. It is only gradually and somewhat in simultaneity that the Rigveda softens and sophisticates him into a civil god of Aryan kind and includes him into the Vedic .. The later Vedic literature identifies in Rudra the proto form of the subsequent Shiva.

When Puranas perceived the formless God manifest in His triple function, which He performed as the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer, both initially and finally, as well as always, they chose Shiva to represent one of these functional aspects of Him and elevated him to the status of the Great Trinity.

 

 

[Guest guest]

All glories to the Supreme Lord and His potency,

 

"Shiva as such, or as Mahadeva, is not alluded to in proper Vedas."

 

First one has to know the purpose of the Vedas -

BG 2.42-43: Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

 

In other words, why would Shiva, who is beyond the heavenly planets, be mentioned in any extensive way in the 4 Vedas?

 

"The Rigveda, however, frequently mentions a brown complexioned sun-like brilliant and gold-like glowing animal-skin-wearing entity by the name of Rudra, or Ishan, who, as per the Rigvedic description, is synonymous of a violent non-Aryan jungle or tribal god capable of subduing, by his mighty arrows, even the most wild of animals. He did not hesitate even to kill human beings and sought delight in such destruction. Hence, the Rigveda is somewhat critical of his wildness and invokes him for not destroying his devotees, their ancestors, offspring, relatives and horses. It is only gradually and somewhat in simultaneity that the Rigveda softens and sophisticates him into a civil god of Aryan kind and includes him into the Vedic."

 

Please quote the verse you are talking about.

 

"and elevated him to the status of the Great Trinity."

 

As if you know the thought process of the great Srila Vyasadeva. What we should accept are the words of the author - Vyasadeva - and he never elevates the status of Lord Shiva - Lord Shiva is naturally the Supreme Lord of the cosmic manifestation, no-one awards him a status - rather he awards the living entities their various destinations. Rudras are simply forms of Shiva manifested within individual universes.

 

From your aspiring servant.