First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#24 Sep 26, 2008
Aryan wrote:
That is called being apologetic. You are essentially saying, "Yeah we have our faults, but others have faults too" well in that case both are as bad as one another and we should reject both. The trouble is by responding like this you indirectly concede to them that what they allege is true. This is why I said, you don't have to apologise to these ignormourses. Rather ask them to cite the evidence for their claims.
Quite right.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#25 Sep 26, 2008
Couch-Potato wrote:
Accepting whatís wrong is the best value our religion has given to us, and I am not going to hesitate from saying that there were some aspects of our religion that are not acceptable to modern society and people have right to criticize for that.
But for the sake of comparison there has to be a benchmark and people against Hinduism have no such benchmark, so they use high pitched voices to highlight the only two negative behaviors in Hinduism that existed in History. If they look at Hinduism now they see no such fault so they do what they can do best, i.e., tell us how bad our past has been. They donít want to look at whatís happening in India now as it scares them. English donít like the fact that Indian companies are talking over their companies; Americans donít like Indian companies as they think they are losing jobs because of them and some of the Muslim countries just donít want to see India as a 21 century powerhouse.
True.
Yet, they can't stop our dedicated progress.
Hinduism builds its society, not on beliefs, or sex, as Islam does.
Hinduism builds its society on WISDOM AND FACTS.
As Islam is based on Kalmae Tayyaba:'La ilah illillah, Muhammadarrasoolallah; Hinduism is based on Gayatri Mantr:
'Bhoorbhuvah svah!
tatsaviturvarenyam, Bhargo devasy' dheemahi,
DHIYO YO NAH PRACHODAYAT.'
'(Vow:)The Existence. The Consciousness. The Bliss.We meditate on the Creator of all, Worthy to be chosen, the Pure, the Divine, Who guide our WISDOM.'
-Ved: 2 Yajurved: Chapter 36/3, Maitraayan'ee Samhita: 1/6/41, 8/18;34;37,41; 3/4/10; Shatpath Brahman': 3/2/2/6
In Hinduism, this Mantr is called MoolMantr, Mahamantr, Mantrraj, etc.

The main difference between these two basic themes of these two great religions, is:
Kalmae Tayyaba mentions a person.
Gayatri Mantr does not.
It mentions Eishan Parambrham Paramatma only.
Thus Islam is basically a person oriented religion, while Hinduism is basically immune to any person whosoever.
It is based on PRINCIPLES, not on any person whosoever.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#26 Sep 26, 2008
'DHIYO YO NAH PRACHODAYAT'
'Who guide our wisdom.'
In this way, principally, Hinduism is quite different from what it's being practiced, normally, today.

Ved is the Basic book of Hinduism.
Even, Guru Granth Sahab says:
'Asankh granth mukhi Vedpaath'.
'Perusal of Ved is utmost important even in infinite books.'

Lord Bhagvan Buddh said:
'Samam samaadaay' vataani jantu
uchchhvacham gachchhati sanysatto,
Vidvaa ch' vedehi samechch' dhammam
n' uchchhvacham gachchhati bhooripanyo.'

'An ordinary person practices different rules
as per his wishes,and goes to up and downs.
BUT the intelligent person, who KNOWS VED, is TOO INTELIGENT TO GO TO THE UPS AND DOWNS.'

Why is it so?

First of all,'DHIYO YO NAH PRACHODAYAT''Who guide our wisdom'.
Ved is interpreted wisely, and intellectually.
The second factor is:

'S' paryyagaachchhukramakaayamavra namasnaaviragvang shuddhamapaapviddham.
Kavirmaneeshee paribhooh svayambhooryaathaatathyato'art haanvyadadhaachchhaashvateebhy ah samaabhyah.'

'He has been attained from everywhere--
Bright,Bodiless,Woundless,Sine wless, the Pure that evil hasn't pierced.
Intelligent, Analyzer, Omnipresent, Self existent, has constituted aims, ACCORDING TO FACTS,unto everlasting subjects/ years.'
--Ved 2Yajurved: 40|8

'YAATHAATATHYATAH''ACCORDING TO FACTS'.
It's the second most important thing that's necessary in interpretation of Ved.

'DHIYO YO NAH PRACHODAYAT''Who guide our wisdom'
and,'YAATHAATATHYATAH''ACCORDI NG TO FACTS':
these are the two guidances from Eishan Param Brahm Paramatma that have made Hinduism IMMORTAL.
Hinduism builds strong PROGRESSIVE individuality:
'Utkraamaatah, purush! maav patthaa
mr'tyoh padveeshamavmunchamaanah,
maachchhitthaa asmaallokaadagneh sooryasy' sandr'shah.'
'Step up from here, O man! FALL NOT DOWN. LOOSENING DOWN THE FETTER OF DEATH. Be not severed from this world, from the sight of one who leads to light, of the sun.'
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 8/1//4

'Udyaanam te, purush! naavyaanam,
jeevaatum te daxtaatim kr'n'omi.
Aa hi rohemamamr'tam sukham rathmath
jirvirvidathamaa vadaasi.'
'Up-going thine, O man! NOT DOWN-GOING. length of life, ability, I make for thee. For do thou ascend this IMMORTAL EASY-RUNNING CHARIOT. Then shalt thou in ADVANCED AGE, speak to the council.'
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 8/1//6

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#27 Sep 26, 2008
Aryan wrote:
Couch Potato, you are missing the point. I am not saying that there aren't reprehensible aspects about Hindu culture, in fact ever since the collapse of the Vedic age Hindu culture has gome from one low to the other and the Hinduism practicised today has barely any resemblance to the Vedic religion. What I am saying is that the original claimaint, Suraj is alleging that wife-burning is a practice prescribed in the Vedas and by apologising to the claimaint you are indirectly conceding his points, when in fact you should be asking him for evidence of his claims.
This is not something specific to you, but many Hindus either out of embarrasement or ignorance hear people make misrepresentations of Hinduism and do not challenge them but indirectly accept them and give apologies.
You do not have to apologise. Simply ask the claimaint to produce evidence or apologise to you for for misrepresenting your religion.
It's the only right attitude we should adopt.
It was an Aasur tradition, as I've already argued.
Some of our ancestors,in their ignorance, adopted it.
We left it again, as it was against Ved.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#28 Sep 26, 2008
Aryan wrote:
I think Durgesh has done an excellent job of setting Challenger straight by rendering an accurate translation of the verse that this ignorant fellow alleged said women were made to have sex with horses.
The same academic acumen is required by all Hindus today. Hinduism is the most misrepresented religion in the world and it is our duties as Hindus to correct those misrepresentations, or else allow those misrepresentations to propogate.
Quite right, and thanks once again.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#29 Sep 26, 2008
Aryan wrote:
I don't see why this point requires any futher discussion. If somebody makes a false claim about Hinduism, simply ask them to give the evidence.
This is not a complex issue.
Quite right.
Ajit

UK

#30 Sep 26, 2008
Durgesh, what is Samhita, Jaataa, Ghan and Maalaa path?

“Maths Guru Srinivasa Ramanujan”

Since: Jul 07

New Delhi

#32 Sep 27, 2008
Durgesh jabalpur wrote:
Hindus adopted it afterwards from Asurs, in their profound stupidity.
And who were these Asuras and where did they live?

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#33 Sep 27, 2008
Aupmanyav wrote:
<quoted text>And who were these Asuras and where did they live?
According to the recorded Hindu History the Asurs were half bothers of the Hindus originally. They were the sons of the same Maharshi Lord Kashyap, whose sons the Hindus were.
Yet, Sati tradition was not adopted by Hindus then.
It was adopted after Treta.
Both the Hindus and Asurs lived on the same earth, we are living now.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#34 Sep 27, 2008
Ajit wrote:
Durgesh, what is Samhita, Jaataa, Ghan and Maalaa path?
These are various methods to preserve the original Sanskr't Vedic texts by our learned and laborious ancestors.
The first Mantr of R'gved is:
'Agnimeede purohitam yagy'asy' devamr'tvijam,
hotaaram ratnadhaatamm.'

It's Samhita Paath is:
'Agnimeedepurohitamyagy'asy'de vamr'tvijam-
hotaaramratnadhaatamm.'

No spacing between any two words at all.
Ved is revealed in Samhita Paath only.
With spacings the Mantr Paath is called PAD PAATH.
'Agnim eede purohitam yagy'asy' devam r'tvijam
hotaaram ratnadhaatamm.'

If this difference between these two recensions is clear to you, tell me so.
We can't proceed any further, if it is not clear to you, to understand Jataa, Ghan and Maalaa paath.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#37 Sep 28, 2008
The same Challenger, the same hate monger, in the same post, writes further:

'After the animal is purified by the priest, the principal wife sleeps near the horse and says: "O Horse, I extract the semen worth conception and you release the semen worth conception'" - Yajur Veda 23/20.'

The hate monger is doing the same what he did in Mantr 23|19.
The original Mantr is:
'Taa'ubhau chaturah padah samprasaaryaav svarge loke prorn'uvaathaam vr'shaa vaajee retodhaa reto dadhaatu.'

'They, you both! spread properly four steps. Get, you both! in paradise. You both are producers of rain, holy fighters, capable in semen. Donate semen.'
-Ved: 2 Yajurved: 23|20

Every one can see that there isn't any horse in the original text. There isn't any wife of Challenger to sleep with that imaginary horse.
I'm unable to understand why he is so much anxious to make his wife to sleep with a horse.
I can understand that he can't satisfy her.
So what?
I'm here for it.
He can rely on me that his wife will be fully satisfied.
There isn't any need to make her sleep with a horse.
Ridiculous.

The four steps to be spread in the Mantr, are Dharm, Arth, Kaam and Mox.
The Mantr says that spreading these four elements, takes the spreaders into paradise:'SVARGE LOKE PRORN'UVAATHAAM'.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#38 Sep 28, 2008
The moron writes further:
'Then the host, while praying to the horse says:
"O horse, please throw semen on the upper part of the anus of my wife. Expand your penis and insert it in the vagina because after insertion, this penis makes women happy and lively" - 23/21.'

He must not worry.
I'll do these every thing to his wife, and even more whatever she likes to.
However, there isn't any such nonsense in the Mantr:

'Utsakthyaa'av gudam dhehi
samanjim chaaryaa, vr'shan!
y' streen'aam jeevbhojanah.'

'Between thighs and anus, give. O capable in semen! spread light properly, which is life-food for the women.'
-Ved: 2 Yajurved: 23|21

The Mantr is telling to release semen into proper place, not elsewhere, as the fanatics do. Moreover, it should be done to spread light properly,'SAMANJIM CHAARYAA', not only to enjoy it.
This act is a responsible act. Don't take it lightly.
It is arranged so that one can get children and shift his/her debt to Eishan, Divine ones, teacher's, father's, mother's etc. to those children, to continue the great work of spreading light, infinitely.

'In the Vedic age, the customs of polygamy was prevalent. Each wife spent most of the time devising ways and means to become favorite to her husband.
Clear references are available in 'Rig Veda',(14/45),' and Atharva Veda (3/81)'

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#39 Sep 28, 2008
R'g Ved 14|45 is wrong reference.
R'g Ved does not have any 14th Mandal.
There are only 10 Mandals in R'g Ved.
It can't be 14th Ashtak even.
R'g Ved has only 8 Ashtaks.

Atharv Ved 3|81 is again wrong reference.
Atharv Ved Kand/Book 3 contains only 31 Sookts/hymns, NOT 81.

So, there is our Challenger, and his so called challenge.
Om, shanno mitrah, sham varun'ah, shanno bhavatvaryyamaa!
Rohit

Portsmouth, UK

#40 Oct 11, 2008
lol...guys first of all lets get one thing right. There is NO such religion as HINDUISM. "Dharma" DOES NOT as a matter of fact mean religion and Hinduism is an anglicised version of the culture of the people of Hindustan. What has existed in our country for millenia was Sanatan Dharma which literally means "Eternal Truth" as Dharma, in this context can only be interpreted as truth, which again is subjective and changes with our perspective.

Tiger's dharma is to kill and eat a deer, but a human's is to protect that deer. Truth changes like the shapes in kaleidoscope, or rather does its interpretation but it still rises from the same fundamental principles which we call Dharma. so yes, let's stop fighting over this silly thing. In fact the practice of "Sati" (wife burning herself with husband) was never a custom as such or neither a ritual. It used to be a voluntary thing which some idiots in middle ages changed to satisfy their selfish motives and exploit women. If love between a man and a woman is as great as Radha and Krishna, then how can either desire life in the absence of the other?

Some women chose to do it and it was what they wished for. It doesn't make it wrong. Forcing it was, however, wrong. Just daft to be honest!

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#41 Oct 11, 2008
Rohit wrote:
lol...guys first of all lets get one thing right. There is NO such religion as HINDUISM. "Dharma" DOES NOT as a matter of fact mean religion and Hinduism is an anglicised version of the culture of the people of Hindustan. What has existed in our country for millenia was Sanatan Dharma which literally means "Eternal Truth" as Dharma, in this context can only be interpreted as truth, which again is subjective and changes with our perspective.
Tiger's dharma is to kill and eat a deer, but a human's is to protect that deer. Truth changes like the shapes in kaleidoscope, or rather does its interpretation but it still rises from the same fundamental principles which we call Dharma. so yes, let's stop fighting over this silly thing. In fact the practice of "Sati" (wife burning herself with husband) was never a custom as such or neither a ritual. It used to be a voluntary thing which some idiots in middle ages changed to satisfy their selfish motives and exploit women. If love between a man and a woman is as great as Radha and Krishna, then how can either desire life in the absence of the other?
Some women chose to do it and it was what they wished for. It doesn't make it wrong. Forcing it was, however, wrong. Just daft to be honest!
True.
Yet, the same SANATAN DHARM is called HINDUISM today.
Should we fight on name?
What is actually important?
Name or the PRINCIPLES?
Jasmine

Brisbane, Australia

#42 Mar 3, 2012
Good points about this on the BIF website.
www.b-i-f.com

"In the Avestan Gatha 'Shatir', 163rd Verse speaks of the visit of Veda Vyas to
the court of Gustashp and in the presence of Zorashtra, Veda Vyas introduces
himself saying 'man marde am Hind jijad' 8 - I am man born in 'Hind'. Veda Vyas
was an elder contemporary of Shri Krishna (3100 B.C.)." Bhaktinono

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hindu Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Antarvasna 09781163269Mujhe Call Karo Main Hun ... 5 min karan 2
Mai apni biwi ko chudwana chahta hu (Jan '12) 5 min ali9676272857 10,904
Bangalore gay sex (Mar '13) 6 min suresh 31,499
Delhi gay sex (Feb '13) 6 min sam 112,577
me 30 year old bhabhi boys apna sex exp. share kro 7 min sweet 140
need a nice boyfriend in delhi (Aug '12) 7 min huisamkhan 525
lund 7 min ravinder 12
Girls ke number yha se le or de 13 min ajeet 12,599
hyderabad gay sex (Apr '13) 39 min ravi kumar 29,229
fakt marathi zavazavi (Jun '12) 54 min diltara 235,329
housewife 55 min piyush 22,739
More from around the web