Hinduist would you agree with this statement?

[Ravi500]

Vedas were Aryan books.

And I hope you are using the term Arya in the true sense of the word,i.e the cultured and civilized one, and not in the distorted sense, where it denotes a race.

Hinduism accepted them in a trade-off for their assimilation in Hinduism. Hinduism is not Vedic religion, that was very different. But since it is thousands of years since the assimilation, it has to be accepted. It is true that during a certain period, the lower castes had to suffer much because of brahmins.

So what if they were from lower castes, Guru Raidas, Gadge Maharaj, Namdev, Narayana Guru and Kabir are all venerable for all hindus. I agree with the red portion in your post. I have tried to put this point across at Wikipedia, but there is a strong coterie who is against it. The last point that you raise is unfortunate.

The vedic religion was formed in India itself and nowhere else. The early rishis were universalistic and had a sense of solidarity with all.

However, their descendants created the caste system , which is similar to the feudal system in many countries. The caste system itself does not exist in the shrutis, but is a part of the smritis.

This may have been necessary at a time, but was abused by the brahmins to sustain their privileged position.

And this is why they opposed Buddha and Mahavira who rejected the vedas and tried to bring spirituality to the common people and instill a sense of equality and brotherhood.

I believe at that point , the caste system should have evolved to democratic forms, but due to the incessant opposition of the Brahmins , this did not happen.

And this ironically finally happened, during the time of the Buddhist Ambedkar who created a constitution based on liberty, fraternity and equality.

 

[Ravi500]

So what if they were from lower castes, Guru Raidas, Gadge Maharaj, Namdev, Narayana Guru and Kabir are all venerable for all hindus. I agree with the red portion in your post. I have tried to put this point across at Wikipedia, but there is a strong coterie who is against it.

Lol. Please remind the strong coterie who is against it, that the lower castes form nearly 80 % of the so-called Hindus. And this fact is becoming more and more evident in election results.

The last point that you raise is unfortunate.

Please clarify which.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Actually, I totally surprise myself and I am going to quote scripture.

There were many 'Gods' in the Vedas, until this happened between Sage Yājñavalkya and Śākalya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (I'll let you read it for yourself - courtesy of a beloved Guru-ji, Swami Krishnananda):

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_III-03.html

Now, you all know where I have learned my Advaitist philosophy from (but you all probably already knew this). lol

Yeah, everything was going fine until that happened...

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Asha]

Hinduism today basically refers to all the philosophies of India that view the Vedas as supreme authority, even if those philosophies contradict each other. Buddhists don't give authority to the Vedas and neither does Jainism, that's why they are considered separate.

That I wouldnt dissagree with .

Sankara was from the "impersonal" school, a more abstract way of interpreting the Vedas. Basically, according to him, the world is an illusion and the only thing that is real is pure conciousness. All souls of living things are actually part of the supreme soul and therefore one and the same. The personal school is different in that it views all living souls as sources of the the supreme soul and therefore subservient. They view brahman and Vishnu to be one and the same, it's a more personal relationship with God that I personally agree with more.

Even here the opinions differ regarding oneness with the supreme, But I assume you meant to say that all living souls are a part of the one supreme source. In which case I am in agreement that although we are a part of the supreme we are not the supreme in its fullness therefore we are subordinate.

For me this is very much the case, I canot imagine wanting it to be any other way.

Why would one who loves God want to become one with god ? However I can understand that anyone beliving the supereme to be formless would naturaly belive that we might eventualy merge with the supreme.

Shankara was a guy that came around when India was a breeding ground for competing philosophies. He basically consolidated things by defeating different gurus in debates and forming his own school which eventually became mainstream. He was instrumental in creating a vedic revival in India that eventually expelled Buddhism out of India and into the far east. it wasn't solely because of him but he played a huge role in it. Buddhism almost took shyt over.

Personaly I feel Shankara to be grossly missunderstood, missinturpreted and Missquoted, it would appear that many place their own inference on what survives of his teachings.
India has allways been a ground for competing philosopies, yet they had happily co-existed for countless generations. Someone previously mentioned Naylanda which housed a myriad of diverse philosophies. However the way we now veiw the idea of debate between various schools of thought is quite possibly very different to the true nature of the debates refered to from these periods.

Saying that Shankara expelled Buddhism from india is some what of an exagerated claim promoted later by the devotees of Shankara, it is a similarly false claim promoted by other schools that he was a crypto Buddhist.

Eventually other gurus from the personal school came around - madhva, and ramanuja, that competed with Sankara school and got their own chunk of support. Those three gurus are the main dudes who pretty much defined "Hindu thought" today.

Some say that the Acharyas who came after Shankara refined his philosophies, However again I do not nececarily think that this is true.
Each school of thought tries to use this argument in order to glorify their own Acharyas.

My thought on this is simply that each Acharya independantly developed their own thoughts very much dependant on their own personal relationship with the supreme.

However even though I am from the Gaudia Vaisnava tradition, I do not conscider the recent schools to be the ''Be All and End All'' of Hinduism, many earlier traditions and beleifs still survive, hinduism encompases all .

 

[Stormcry]

Vedas were Aryan books. Hinduism accepted them in a trade-off for their assimilation in Hinduism. Hinduism is not Vedic religion, that was very different. But since it is thousands of years since the assimilation, it has to be accepted.

Nonsense ! Puranas mention Arya word to refer Dvijas . Arya means noble , pious or sacred . Puranas says " Birth in bramhan, kshatriya , vaishya varna is very auspicious . Because they becomes aryas/dvijas after Upanayan Sanskara.

Hinduism is a modern term referred to Vedic dharma . In puranas , it is mentioned that there is different aspect of dharma in every yuga. Eg- In satya yuga , there was no any idol worshiping and there was only one varna -Hansa Varna. However In later yugas , Sages created four varna and idol worshiping.

As stated in purana , dharma gets modified according to conditions of yuga. This is for every cycle of 4 yugas . This is eternal process as long as there is universe. So only a dull person can say that Hinduism isn't vedic dharma ( worshiping of minor gods like indra )

BTW, Hinduism includes everything -From worship of vedic minor gods to the worship of supreme gods like Vishnu & Shiva .


So keep your imaginations with you .Don't spread it and save the dharma .


And do you know that Purana is the fifth veda . Yhe author of veda , vyasa himself said that . If you don't accept this , why you are reading his sacred creation ?


Note : Vedic dharma is a modern term coined after hindu name .There is no mention of 'vedic dharma' words in scriptures .

Vedas and puranas explicitly mentions dharma as a Dharma only . So Dharma is the parent and original name of Hindu Dharma.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

And do you know that Purana is the fifth veda .

:biglaugh:

I should really print and frame this one.

 

[Stormcry]

:biglaugh:

I should really print and frame this one.

So do , jai bhole nath .

I really don't like pseudo modern hindus .

 

[punkdbass]

Of that, I am not sure. My statement had to deal with Advaita-m's "founding father" and his tendencies to describe Vishnu as supreme, big boy, big daddy status. Even though he was a Smarta, Shankara praised Vishnu as the supreme the most. However, this question should be asked to Jaskaran. He's way more knowledgeable on early Advaita-m than I ever will be.

I've seen your other posts on this subject, and I'm really curious to see where or how Shankara describes Vishnu (or any deity for that manner) as being superior too or "above" Brahman. It is not that I'm disagreeing with you, I've just never read Shankara's words for myself.. I'm curious if he would say the most supreme Deity is identical to Brahman, below Brahman (i.e. Brahman somehow transcends the Supreme Deity), or above (not in any way limited by) Brahman.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

So do , jai bhole nath .

Thank you, but I'm still torn by a terrible dilemma: it would be a waste of space on a wall, but at the mean time a perfect laught inducing material, and laughting is very good for the health ! I heard it can even lengthen the lifespan, incredible right ?

I really don't like pseudo modern hindus .

How amazing ! Is it my skin color that makes you assume that ? Crap. So acknowledging the authority of Sruti (you know like, Vedas and stuff ?) and studying them along with tantra in a traditionnalist Hindu lineage makes me a pseudo modern Hindu ? Waow. Then what is a traditionnal Hindu, young supreme realized master ? Wait wait wait, don't tell me ! A real Hindu is a person born in India and only in India and that have only Indian blood and recognize the sole and supreme authority of Sri Krsna and Vaisnav puranas.

Yeah, riiiiight.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lol. Please remind the strong coterie who is against it, that the lower castes form nearly 80 % of the so-called Hindus. And this fact is becoming more and more evident in election results.

I did all that.

Please clarify which.

It is unfortunate that "Even today, there are many lower caste hindus who are barred from entering temples in certain areas due to caste discrimination."

 

[Asha]

not wanting to cause an argument , but ....

Chandogya Upanishaid ......


Part Seven
Chapter I — Dialogue between Narada and Sanatkumara
1. Om. Narada approached Sanatkumara as a pupil and said: "Venerable Sir, please teach me." Sanatkumara said to him: "Please tell me what you already know. Then I shall tell you what is beyond."
2. Narada said: "Venerable Sir, I know the Rig—Veda, the Yajur—Veda, the Sama—Veda, the Atharva—Veda as the fourth Veda, the epics (Puranas) and ancient lore (Itihasa) as the fifth, the Veda of the Vedas (i.e. grammar), the rules of the sacrifices by which the Manes are gratified, the science of numbers, the science of portents, the science of time, logic, ethics, etymology, Brahma—vidya (i.e. the science of pronunciation, ceremonials, prosody, etc.), the science of elemental spirits, the science of weapons, astronomy, the science of serpents and the fine arts. All this I know, venerable Sir.

 

[Asha]

itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ

itihāsapurāṇaṃ ; the histories and the puranas

 

[Tyaga]

Yes,Ithihasa-Puranas are considered as fifth Veda in some texts.But i doubt this refer to the current version of the Puranas of which most parts cannot be dated beyond CE.

 

[Tyaga]

Vedas were Aryan books.

They were Vedic books

Hinduism is not Vedic religion

But it is an evolution of Vedic religion and concepts.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Tyaga ji :namaste

Yes,Ithihasa-Puranas are considered as fifth Veda in some texts.But I doubt this refer to the current version of the Puranas of which most parts cannot be dated beyond CE.

Chandogya Upanishad quoted above is considered to be 6th centurty BC so it referes to the earlier puranas and the Ithihasa refer to the great historical epics the Ramayan and the Mahabarata .

 

[Poeticus]

Then what is a traditionnal Hindu, young supreme realized master ? Wait wait wait, don't tell me ! A real Hindu is a person born in India and only in India and that have only Indian blood and recognize the sole and supreme authority of Sri Krsna and Vaisnav puranas.

Yeah, riiiiight.

Do I count? I was born in a different galaxy on a planet called Bukka-Bukka-Boo.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste


the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad also refers to the Itihasa-Puranas .......

"As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth, so, my dear, verily, from this glorious great God has been breathed forth the Rig-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, Atharvanagirasa, Itihasas, Puranas, science of knowledge, mystic doctrines or Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries. From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth." ..... 2.4.10


"The Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Vedas, the"One should expand and accept the meaning of the Vedas with the help of the Itihasas and Puranas. The Vedas are afraid of being mistreated by one who is ignorant of the Itihasas and Puranas." Upanishads, verses and mantras, sutras, and the spiritual knowledge and explanations within, all emanate from the Supreme Being."......4.5.11




as far as I know the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad pre dates the Chandogya Upanishad.
confirming the veiw held in the early upanishadic period .


the Mahabarata , Adi Parva alsomentions the importance of the puranas...

"One should expand and accept the meaning of the Vedas with the help of the Itihasas and Puranas.''

it was considered that only the twice born who trained in the vedas were qualified to read them without fear of missinturpretation , the Itihasas and Puranas were considered to hold the same truths in the more accesable form of historical accounts and stories .

 

[ratikala]

Do I count? I was born in a different galaxy on a planet called Bukka-Bukka-Boo.

now let me see

how many heads does Brahma have in Bukka Bukka Boo ?

and how many veda's did he speak ?

 

[Tyaga]

Namaste Ratikala,

I think 6th cent BCE is quite late date for ChUp,since Buddha who lived in 6th milln BCE already speaks of Chandogya Brahmins who taught union with Brahman.

 

[ratikala]

Namaste Ratikala,

I think 6th cent BCE is quite late date for ChUp,since Buddha who lived in 6th milln BCE already speaks of Chandogya Brahmins who taught union with Brahman.

jai jai , .. I am being conservative with the dates personaly I feel that many texts are a lot older than the dates commonly given , it allways amazes me that it was originaly an oral tradition , yet great store is put upon the date of writen texts ?