Hinduism and Indian Culture

[TatTvamAsi]

Sorry to break it to you, there was NO Aryan "invasion" at all!

It has been thoroughly disproven by archeological finds recently and only the euro-centric and anti-Hindu so-called "scholars" repeat this bunk ad-nauseum.

In fact, there is strong evidence of people moving OUT of the Indian sub-continent northward and westward.

Sanatana Dharma was born (discovered actually) in India, it is in India, it was always remain in India.

There are lots of speculations about the origin of Hinduism, but there is some overlap between Hindu gods and those of other ancient religions, particularly in Indo-European culture. So one could say that at least a portion of the religion was imported with the Aryan invasions into northern India. It is no accident that both Kama and Cupid are gods of love armed with a bow and arrow. I also think that there are good reasons to think that Hinduism and Buddhism played a role in the formation of Christianity, thanks to Greek and Roman interactions with Hindu culture since Alexander's times.

India itself is multicultural, and the south, which is not originally of Aryan (i.e. Indo-European) origin, preserved Hinduism when it was most threatened by Muslim invaders. Buddhism, however, seems to have become the most popular multi-cultural religion of Indian origin. So a version of Buddhism has become the most popular religion of Indian origin among non-Indian Americans. Hinduism, like Judaism, remains closely associated with ethnicity. Buddhism seems to have escaped that perception.

 

[Mr Cheese]

yep, I love a good ruby murray

and I've never once gave an offering to Ganesh...

 

[Mr Cheese]

Hinduism and Indian culture are inseparable.

It requires a tremendous amount of evolved thinking to understand Hinduism and that is why there is no "conversion" to Hinduism; at least, for most orthodox Hindus.

One has to be born into that tradition. We do not to herd people like the abrahamic faiths to claim # of followers. Follow your own tradition and when your soul is evolved enough, it will take birth in a Hindu family.

End of story.

one opinion:

"Man more than it is realised is a product of the ground he walks upon
A Rose of the West should not seek to blossom
Like the Lotus of the east.."

--G Knight (The Rose Cross and the Goddess)

not sure I agree, but tis one opinion....
which states the land itself is a factor
people tend to forget this, especially when only looking at surface thigns, like culture....

Although I would tend to agree, we are born into somethign generally...
Myself though, as born into commie pinko atheist Jewish family.....its not difficult to be the black sheep and actually be a seeker..... mmm maybe thats why I was born into this...

just rambling...

 

[Andal]

Hinduism and Indian culture are inseparable.

It requires a tremendous amount of evolved thinking to understand Hinduism and that is why there is no "conversion" to Hinduism; at least, for most orthodox Hindus.

One has to be born into that tradition. We do not to herd people like the abrahamic faiths to claim # of followers. Follow your own tradition and when your soul is evolved enough, it will take birth in a Hindu family.

End of story.

Namaskar,

If this were true Hinduism would have never spread to Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia. We also wouldn't have evidence of ancient Greeks converting to Hinduism. Sanatana Dharma is eternal truth, not truth only for people born in the sub continent.

Also haver you talked to most orthodox Hindus? I had my conversion acknowledged by orthodox Hindu Brahmins in India.

I will agree with you only if you're speaking of Hindu in the strictest sense of the word as one who lives on the other side of the Sindu. If you're speaking of Sanatana Dharma though it is universally available.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[zenzero]

Friend TatTwamAsi,

Originally Posted by TatTvamAsi
Hinduism and Indian culture are inseparable.

It requires a tremendous amount of evolved thinking to understand Hinduism and that is why there is no "conversion" to Hinduism; at least, for most orthodox Hindus.

One has to be born into that tradition. We do not to herd people like the abrahamic faiths to claim # of followers. Follow your own tradition and when your soul is evolved enough, it will take birth in a Hindu family.

End of story.

The END is the Beginning of another story!
Firstly the word *hinduism* itself shows that the thinking has not transformed to no-thoughts and meditation.
It was, is and will remain sanatan dharma.
Sanatn dharma does not belong to any individual or group or any country, region.
The deepest meaning of this label is ETERNAL without beginning or end and all paths or ways are covered and open which means that even a person believing and praying christ or taking the name of allah falls in this category.
It means every human is a follower of a dharma and that is what sanatan dharma is all about.
Anything below that is degrading the label through the individual's own thoughts.
This is the personal understanding. though for reasons unknown am born in this life in a family supposedly to be part of that culture in India.
Love & rgds

 

[TatTvamAsi]

Just because Hinduism has been practiced by other cultures does not mean that it and Indian culture are distinct. In fact, you will see a tremendous amount of similarity between those cutlures, its people, and India BECAUSE of Hinduism.

Also, I am a Hindu Brahmin myself and no Brahmin I know would ever accept a 'convert'; especially a foreigner. I am not sure how 'orthodox' the "Brahmins" you met are. Furthermore, most orthodoxy is breaking down in modern times.

Also, I never said Sanatana Dharma is for people "only" in the subcontinent. I said it is for highly evolved souls so nobody can just 'convert' to it like you claim. One has to be born into that lineage to really be a 'Hindu'. The likelihood of that happening is mostly in India.

Sanatana Dharma is Indian in nature, being, and existence. Its application is universal as you say and I agree with that; after all, it describes the nature of reality.

Namaskar,

If this were true Hinduism would have never spread to Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia. We also wouldn't have evidence of ancient Greeks converting to Hinduism. Sanatana Dharma is eternal truth, not truth only for people born in the sub continent.

Also haver you talked to most orthodox Hindus? I had my conversion acknowledged by orthodox Hindu Brahmins in India.

I will agree with you only if you're speaking of Hindu in the strictest sense of the word as one who lives on the other side of the Sindu. If you're speaking of Sanatana Dharma though it is universally available.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Satsangi]

India is unique and so is Sanatan Dharma. Bhagvan Shri Ved Vyas says that the human birth is the best of all births because only the humans are capable of Moksha. Out of all humans, fortunate are the ones born in the Jambudweep and out of those humans more fortunate ones are born in the BharatVarsha. To be born as a human in BharatVarsha is a dream for the Devas too as in the BharatVarsha there has ALWAYS been presence (pragatya) of God's Avatars or God realized Saints and Gurus who are capable of guiding and giving you the Moksha IF YOU TRY AND COME IN CONTACT WITH THEM. Bharat was, is and will always remain a MokshaBhoomi.

If you think deeply, above statement is TRUE. Nowhere else on earth, there has been pragatya of so many BhramaGnani Rishis, Gurus and God's Avatars.

It is a great misfortune if a person born in the BharatVarsha does not yearn for Moksha by seeking a real Guru and on the contrary runs after the animal like material pleausures which he has had in plenty in millions of his past births. He will again fall into the endless ravine of births and deaths.

About Hinduism and India - Gayatri Mantra can only be chanted in Sanskrit- there is no other way. You need to be with a Guru to realize God; you learn not only from verbal or book teachings- the spiritual Gyan is mostly non verbal. In the same way, to learn Hinduism in meaning, action and depth- you have to be in India- there is no other way.

 

[TatTvamAsi]

"friend",

I beg to differ with your outlook on Sanatana Dharma.

As mentioned elsewhere online, Sanatana Dharma, its application, is universal however its origins certainly are not. The principles were discovered in India and India alone (Aryavarta if you prefer the old name). That is not coincidental. India was, is, and always will be the spiritual epicenter of this planet. All the Dharmic religions arose there. It was certainly no coincidence. Yes, labels tend to miss the whole picture and I am not trying to push India in front of Sanatana Dharma. But you should be careful, as should most westerners, about DENYING the greatness of India that is intertwined with Sanatana Dharma. But for India, these principles would have no doubt existed, but would not have been discovered and brought forth by the Rishis of Aryavarta. So, in essence, no India= no Hinduism.

Friend TatTwamAsi,



The END is the Beginning of another story!
Firstly the word *hinduism* itself shows that the thinking has not transformed to no-thoughts and meditation.
It was, is and will remain sanatan dharma.
Sanatn dharma does not belong to any individual or group or any country, region.
The deepest meaning of this label is ETERNAL without beginning or end and all paths or ways are covered and open which means that even a person believing and praying christ or taking the name of allah falls in this category.
It means every human is a follower of a dharma and that is what sanatan dharma is all about.
Anything below that is degrading the label through the individual's own thoughts.
This is the personal understanding. though for reasons unknown am born in this life in a family supposedly to be part of that culture in India.
Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
All differences comes from *thoughts* and to be a brahmin one needs to be in no-thoughts.
Differences of countries, religions, caste, colour,creed are all rooted in thoughts and Brahmin is one who has transcended thoughts.
By claiming to be born or being a brahmin never makes anyone so.
One needs to be ONE!.
Love & rgds

 

[Andal]

Just because Hinduism has been practiced by other cultures does not mean that it and Indian culture are distinct. In fact, you will see a tremendous amount of similarity between those cutlures, its people, and India BECAUSE of Hinduism.

Actually if you study history you will see otherwise. Hinduism was carried by traders to Indonesia around the 7th. century C.E. (along with Buddhism) Before then Indonesian culture was animistic, which it still is today to some extent. The closes culture that this argument could be made for is Cambodia where there was a lot of interaction back and forth and inter marriage.

Also, I am a Hindu Brahmin myself and no Brahmin I know would ever accept a 'convert'; especially a foreigner. I am not sure how 'orthodox' the "Brahmins" you met are. Furthermore, most orthodoxy is breaking down in modern times.

So the brahmins at Kashi Vishvanath Mandir were not sufficiently brahmin?

Also, I never said Sanatana Dharma is for people "only" in the subcontinent. I said it is for highly evolved souls so nobody can just 'convert' to it like you claim. One has to be born into that lineage to really be a 'Hindu'. The likelihood of that happening is mostly in India.

I can just as easily agree with you and so of course not just anyone can convert, only elevated souls can. And who are the elevated souls? The ones who openly seek out wisdom and set forth to practice Dharma because just ordinary souls would have no inclination to read, study, and practice. But I won't say that because it only feeds the ego.

Besides that who do you think is the more elevated soul, the guy born into a Hindu lineage who drinks, eats meat, gambles, sleeps around and does not tend to his religious obligations (and yes they do exist.) or the foreigner who for goes those things despite it being cultural acceptable and sets out to learn the scriptures, meet religious obligations, and seeks moksha?

Sanatana Dharma is Indian in nature, being, and existence. Its application is universal as you say and I agree with that; after all, it describes the nature of reality.

[/QUOTE]

How can you say Sanatana Dharma is Indian in nature? That makes no sense if it's eternal, considering being Indian is not an eternal state. The atma, Isvara, and Brahman are not Indian they are eternal.

Aum Hari Aum

 

[Andal]

Friends,
All differences comes from *thoughts* and to be a brahmin one needs to be in no-thoughts.
Differences of countries, religions, caste, colour,creed are all rooted in thoughts and Brahmin is one who has transcended thoughts.
By claiming to be born or being a brahmin never makes anyone so.
One needs to be ONE!.
Love & rgds

agreed

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

India is unique and so is Sanatan Dharma. Bhagvan Shri Ved Vyas says that the human birth is the best of all births because only the humans are capable of Moksha. Out of all humans, fortunate are the ones born in the Jambudweep and out of those humans more fortunate ones are born in the BharatVarsha. To be born as a human in BharatVarsha is a dream for the Devas too as in the BharatVarsha there has ALWAYS been presence (pragatya) of God's Avatars or God realized Saints and Gurus who are capable of guiding and giving you the Moksha IF YOU TRY AND COME IN CONTACT WITH THEM. Bharat was, is and will always remain a MokshaBhoomi.

The uniqueness of the place is not in the label *bhartavarsha /india / etc.*. It is because of the environment created by so many enlightened people. The light is so bright here that it reaches to the very end of all thoughts possible.

It is a great misfortune if a person born in the BharatVarsha does not yearn for Moksha by seeking a real Guru and on the contrary runs after the animal like material pleausures which he has had in plenty in millions of his past births. He will again fall into the endless ravine of births and deaths.

A Lotus leaf grows in water but never touches the water. Take out a lotus leaf out of water and one finds all the water just falls down without a drop sticking.
Similarly a person never falls down after attaining moksha yes may be possible to chase a few illusions here and there but will always be back home as he now knows his way back. He becomes a player in this playworld and takes active part and spreads the light, dispelling darkness.

Those were days or ages when the world was fragmented [in thoughts], now in a globalised world we should transcend this space and consider it just another place on planet earth and humans like any other living in other parts.

Love & rgds

 

[Satsangi]

Common humans were same a thousand year ago and are same now- they have as much animal instinct now as they had before- it is a myth that we are now "globalized" or "civilized" or "developed". In fact our hearts have only grown smaller.

There is something in the LAND of BharatVarsha only that so many Saints and Avatars have made it their home versus the large land expanse of other parts of the world. Whatever it may be, THIS IS A BLESSED LAND - MOKSHABHOOMI.

Not all flowers are lotuses. So always run away from the dirt. Agreed that after Moksha there is no return.

 

[Andal]

Common humans were same a thousand year ago and are same now- they have as much animal instinct now as they had before- it is a myth that we are now "globalized" or "civilized" or "developed". In fact our hearts have only grown smaller.

There is something in the LAND of BharatVarsha only that so many Saints and Avatars have made it their home versus the large land expanse of other parts of the world. Whatever it may be, THIS IS A BLESSED LAND - MOKSHABHOOMI.

Not all flowers are lotuses. So always run away from the dirt. Agreed that after Moksha there is no return.

I agree. There is something very special about BharatVarsha that is beyond words. Not to mention it is where the Ganga is

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry to break it to you, there was NO Aryan "invasion" at all!

Well, don't apologize. You are not the first Hindu nationalist to make this claim, but the evidence of an Aryan invasion is incontrovertible, both linguistically and archaeologically.

It has been thoroughly disproven by archeological finds recently and only the euro-centric and anti-Hindu so-called "scholars" repeat this bunk ad-nauseum.

Translation: Only a small group of Hindu nationalists contradict the international consensus among scholars.

In fact, there is strong evidence of people moving OUT of the Indian sub-continent northward and westward.

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Sanskrit is a language in the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European. The original homeland of the Indo-European language group has been pretty clearly proven not to have been on the Indian subcontinent, but most likely in the steppes of Russia or near ancient Anatolia.

Sanatana Dharma was born (discovered actually) in India, it is in India, it was always remain in India.

It is certainly true that many elements of Hinduism are not Indo-European in origin.

 

[TatTvamAsi]

Well, don't apologize. You are not the first Hindu nationalist to make this claim, but the evidence of an Aryan invasion is incontrovertible, both linguistically and archaeologically.

It is obvious that you have been fed to the hilt with bilge by euro-centric, anti-Indian and anti-Hindu mongrels parading as scholars. All the proponents of "aryan invasion" are anti-Hindus to begin with and secondly, they continue to expound the bogus claim that the philosophy and traditions of Hinduism originated outside of the subcontinent and were 'brought-in' by nomads.

Right, when your ancestors were living in caves Hindus were meditating on the nature of reality and discovering principles of the universe.

The evidence is incontrovertible that there was NO "aryan" invasion at all. And, to add to that, Alexander the NOT SO great got his *** handed to him by the Hindus and beat a hasty retreat. Of course, the mongrels you learnt 'history', which is half prejudice and half guesswork even according to HG Wells, must have claimed that alexander and his monkeys felt "too tired and homesick rolleyes to fight and therefore retreated". hahaha..

Translation: Only a small group of Hindu nationalists contradict the international consensus among scholars.

"international" did you say? What on earth do a bunch of bible-thumping dead-jew on a stick (jesus) worshiping untouchables (ex. michael witzel et. al) have to do with the history of India? Their words (and their lives I might add) are as insignificant as yours. It has been clearly shown that the incredible bias and anti-Indian/Hindu attitude these so-called scholars have and hence they keep hanging on to the relic called the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Sanskrit is a language in the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European. The original homeland of the Indo-European language group has been pretty clearly proven not to have been on the Indian subcontinent, but most likely in the steppes of Russia or near ancient Anatolia.

Again, merely repeating bilge that the anti-Indian/Hindu idiots keep harping about. Sanskrit has been proven to be the mother of all languages, let alone "indo-european" languages. The arrogant euro-centric idiots are too blind to accept that their pathetic languages devolved from Sanskrit so they try to desperately find a pseudo-homeland for the origin of IE language group outside of India.

It is certainly true that many elements of Hinduism are not Indo-European in origin.

Correction, NOTHING of real value are of european in origin. Hinduism has always been native to India (which included present-day afghanistan, pakistan, nepal, bangladesh, and some parts of eastern iran).

Only pseudo-secular Indians, anti-Hindu foreigners and Indians themselves are for this nonsensical myth called the "aryan invasion theory". Hate to break it to you: Indians are Aryans (in the REAL sense of the word).

 

[Copernicus]

It is obvious that you have been fed to the hilt with bilge by euro-centric, anti-Indian and anti-Hindu mongrels parading as scholars. All the proponents of "aryan invasion" are anti-Hindus to begin with and secondly, they continue to expound the bogus claim that the philosophy and traditions of Hinduism originated outside of the subcontinent and were 'brought-in' by nomads.

Actually, I was fed that "bilge" by first rank Indo-Europeanists before I earned my Ph.D. in linguistics. One of those Indo-Europeanists was a Hindu, a former head of the linguistics department at Kurukshetra University, who taught me Sanskrit, Hindi, and yoga. He had spent time in jail during the Raj, but that probably wouldn't mean much to you. Clearly you have nothing but contempt for Indians who might disagree with your prejudices.

Right, when your ancestors were living in caves Hindus were meditating on the nature of reality and discovering principles of the universe.

You know nothing of my ancestry, but, when you go back that far, we probably all have shared ancestors. I'm sure that some of mine lived in the same caves that yours did.

The evidence is incontrovertible that there was NO "aryan" invasion at all...

Nonsense. Read the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita. The Aryans migrated to northern India (probably well after the collapse of the the Harappa civilization). There was little or no evidence of horses in the Harappa culture, and that was a characteristic of the Aryan-led culture.

And, to add to that, Alexander the NOT SO great got his *** handed to him by the Hindus and beat a hasty retreat. Of course, the mongrels you learnt 'history', which is half prejudice and half guesswork even according to HG Wells, must have claimed that alexander and his monkeys felt "too tired and homesick rolleyes to fight and therefore retreated". hahaha..

You clearly haven't studied the history of those times. Greeks had a major impact on Indian culture, and they were even mentioned in Panini's classic Astadhyayisutrapatha, the definitive work on the Sanskrit language.

Again, merely repeating bilge that the anti-Indian/Hindu idiots keep harping about. Sanskrit has been proven to be the mother of all languages, let alone "indo-european" languages. The arrogant euro-centric idiots are too blind to accept that their pathetic languages devolved from Sanskrit so they try to desperately find a pseudo-homeland for the origin of IE language group outside of India.

Sanskrit has been scientifically proven to be an Indo-European language (through sound correspondences in cognate vocabulary). We know that Indo-European did not spread from India, because shared cognate words across Indo-European cultures suggest flora and fauna that did not exist in India in ancient times. The word for "salmon", for example, typically referred to a fish in daughter languages where the fish was known to speakers. In the Indic branch, where it was not known at the time, the word came to mean different things, such as "prize" and "jump". That is, the cognate words continued to exist, but their usage was adapted to different environmental conditions. The only reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that Sanskrit descended from an ancestor language whose homeland was outside of Indian subcontinent. The most reasonable theory about the Harappa culture is that they spoke an earlier version of modern Dravidian languages.

 

[zenzero]

Friend satsangi,

Agreed that after Moksha there is no return.

Hahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who was there to attain *moksha*, my dear friend?

Love & rgds

 

[Smoke]

Since Hinduism originated in India, there are a lot of Indian cultural practices found in the religion, but I was wondering is it possible to separate Hinduism and Indian culture?

In the temple, we have to pray and sing in Indian languages. During special Hindu festivals, people are supposed to wear Indian outfits like saris or shervanis. Temples and murtis are made using Indian architecture. Non-South Asians would feel out of place (unless they don't mind it). Do you think it would be possible to at the least make Hinduism a little more multicultural?

I'm not a Hindu, but with all due respect, I would be very cautious about separating the religion from the culture. When I first converted to Greek Orthodoxy I wanted everything to be in English, and I was very impatient with Greek, but eventually I learned to pray in Greek and -- more to the point -- I started to understand that a lot of converts to Orthodoxy don't really adopt Orthodoxy. They come to Orthodoxy as refugees from some other Christian sect, and they bring all their issues and attitudes from, say the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church. That's fine; people come as they are. But often they come as whole parishes or they come and seek out "Americanized" parishes, and they become a kind of heterodox outpost in the Church. They're whatever they were before, and they've found a refuge in the Church but they haven't learned the Orthodox way of life or internalized Orthodox theology. They're just Western Christians who have set up house in an Eastern church, and I think the Church suffers from this.

People who love opera learn enough German and Italian to follow a libretto. It's not asking too much for people to learn a bit of Sanskrit.

 

[Satsangi]

Friend satsangi,



Hahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who was there to attain *moksha*, my dear friend?

Love & rgds

Agreed- That is the state after Moksha. Before that, my friend, I have my own gross, subtle and causal body which have to disappear by Gyan Pralaya. I pray for the same to the Anadi Ishwar and Guru to grace me with this blessing.

Regards,