India and Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)

[Manish_agarwal]

Are there many Indian Athesists? Is it common? The doctors here in the U.S.A. that have come from India that I know are Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist.

being an esotoric religion with plenty of myths, stories, rituals etc very few people in India have exposure to real Hinduism(Real Hinduism basically are the 4 Vedas). rest are mythology therefore most of the Atheists I know of are mainly from the Upper castes(Brahmins basically).

The lower castes being not exposed to the real Hinduism(apart from the myths basically) are devout followers (fortunately or unfortunately as you like).

 

[Madhuri]

Our point of debate is whether Upanishad are the commentary of the vedas or not?. Anyone can see very clearly that they are not the commentary of the vedas.

I dont understand by the term "attached to the vedas". If they are attached then yes they are attached to the Sruti but not considered as Vedas. And please dont call them as commentary of the vedas . That would be a huge lie. They are NO in way related to the vedas whatsoever.

How can you call one with Rites,Rituals, Sacrificce and one with Philosophical speculations to be related?. Its absurb really your logic here.

And 3 Vedas are supposed to be of origin around 2500 BC or so. The Upanishads origin is much much later to the vedas almost 2000 years after Rig veda. Besides the subject matter of 2 are not related whatsoever.

Perhaps a better wording is that the Upanishads interpret the philosophical meanings of the Vedas.
The Upanishads are part of the Vedas just as the Samhita, Aranayak and Brahmana are. For example, the Isha Upanishad is actually the final chapter of the Shukla Yajurveda. The Upanishads represent the 'knowledge' sections of the Vedas. Some Upanishads are part of the Aranyakas and some stand alone.

All Upanishads are classified under one of the 4 Vedas. Here is a source and I suggest that you research this rather than just take my word for it:

Upanishads

 

[Manish_agarwal]

Perhaps a better wording is that the Upanishads interpret the philosophical meanings of the Vedas.
The Upanishads are part of the Vedas just as the Samhita, Aranayak and Brahmana are. For example, the Isha Upanishad is actually the final chapter of the Shukla Yajurveda. The Upanishads represent the 'knowledge' sections of the Vedas. Some Upanishads are part of the Aranyakas and some stand alone.

All Upanishads are classified under one of the 4 Vedas. Here is a source and I suggest that you research this rather than just take my word for it:

That is like saying that Constitution of India explains the knowledge of Mathematics.

Sorry please open the Vedas and the Upanishad and read it yourself. They are in no way connected to each other. Their philosophies are different with each other.
In fact they contradict each other all forms.

Nowhere are the Upanishad exlaining the 4 Vedas. I dont know from where do you get this idea of explaining the "Knowledge of the Vedas".

Besides the Upanishad came 2000 years after the 4 vedas. So does this mean that for 2000 years the Brahmins were doing their Vedic rites without any knowledge?.

 

[Madhuri]

That is like saying that Constitution of India explains the knowledge of Mathematics.

Sorry please open the Vedas and the Upanishad and read it yourself. They are in no way connected to each other. Their philosophies are different with each other.
In fact they contradict each other all forms.

Nowhere are the Upanishad exlaining the 4 Vedas. I dont know from where do you get this idea of explaining the "Knowledge of the Vedas".

Besides the Upanishad came 2000 years after the 4 vedas. So does this mean that for 2000 years the Brahmins were doing their Vedic rites without any knowledge?.

All parts of the Vedas were passed down through oral tradition, including the Upanishads. They were all composed at different times, even each Vedas. All revealed scriptures come from Realisation, according to Hindu beliefs, so just because those who held knowledge of the Vedas did not have a written document does not mean they did not have the knowledge/understanding. The Upanishads are considered to be divine revelation and all sources link them to the Vedas- even if you are right that they do not seem linked. The point is that in (relatively) recent history, people do not have the knowledge or wisdom to interpret the Vedas and so other texts, such as the Upanishads, exist to provide explanations and interpretations.

It is fine if you do not believe this. It may not be true that any of it is divine revelation. But this is the general belief in Hinduism, so the Upanishads play a very significant role in Hindu belief.

 

[Manish_agarwal]

All parts of the Vedas were passed down through oral tradition, including the Upanishads. They were all composed at different times, even each Vedas. All revealed scriptures come from Realisation, according to Hindu beliefs, so just because those who held knowledge of the Vedas did not have a written document does not mean they did not have the knowledge/understanding. The Upanishads are considered to be divine revelation and all sources link them to the Vedas- even if you are right that they do not seem linked. The point is that in (relatively) recent history, people do not have the knowledge or wisdom to interpret the Vedas and so other texts, such as the Upanishads, exist to provide explanations and interpretations.

It is fine if you do not believe this. It may not be true that any of it is divine revelation. But this is the general belief in Hinduism, so the Upanishads play a very significant role in Hindu belief.

"All parts of the Vedas were passed down through oral tradition, including the Upanishads."

how is this related to what im saying?.


"The Upanishads are considered to be divine revelation and all sources link them to the Vedas- even if you are right that they do not seem linked."

Sources such as?. It is easy for anyone who has gone through both of them to know that both contradict each other. Both contradict each other outrightly.

" The point is that in (relatively) recent history, people do not have the knowledge or wisdom to interpret the Vedas and so other texts, such as the Upanishads, exist to provide explanations and interpretations."

So you are saying that just because people dont have the knowledge of the vedas let us give them the knowledge of the Upanishads which are noway related to the vedas and which in fact contradict the vedas?.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It is fine if you do not believe this. It may not be true that any of it is divine revelation. But this is the general belief in Hinduism, so the Upanishads play a very significant role in Hindu belief.

Have you ever met a Hindu that did not believe the Upanishads where tied to the Vedas?

 

[Madhuri]

Have you ever met a Hindu that did not believe the Upanishads where tied to the Vedas?

No. It seems common knowledge that they are. I am not saying that they do not seem to contradict parts of the Veda. I was always taught that the Vedas alone are not possible to understand (deeply symbolic) and this is why other sections were included.

 

[Manish_agarwal]

Have you ever met a Hindu that did not believe the Upanishads where tied to the Vedas?

The point here is this : 1. There are 4 vedas - Rig/Soma/Vajur/Arharveda. They mainly contain stuff about calling different Gods for material prosperity, sacrifices, rituals, vividly describe Heaven (Afterlife), and some black/white magic and various other sacrifices. Total verses(Mantras) of these 4 vedas = 1000 or so. Now there are the Upanishads (108 of them and still counting)....they number upto 10,000 slokas or more and each of them contain philosophical aspects of Soul and Atman and how Soul and Atman can reach each other. Then Upanishads also talk about samsara and rebirth etc. Now it is very clear that the 2 are no way related to each other and were clearly written at very different times(almost 1000 or more years apart) Inand talk 2 different things. The subject matter among the 2 are wide apart. If Hindu apologists says that Upanishads are supposed to be "Knowledge of the Vedas" or ending of the vedas ....... How can something of 10,000 mantras be the ending of something of 1000 mantras?.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The point here is this : 1. There are 4 vedas - Rig/Soma/Vajur/Arharveda. They mainly contain stuff about calling different Gods for material prosperity, sacrifices, rituals, vividly describe Heaven (Afterlife), and some black/white magic and various other sacrifices. Total verses(Mantras) of these 4 vedas = 1000 or so. Now there are the Upanishads (108 of them and still counting)....they number upto 10,000 slokas or more and each of them contain philosophical aspects of Soul and Atman and how Soul and Atman can reach each other. Then Upanishads also talk about samsara and rebirth etc. Now it is very clear that the 2 are no way related to each other and were clearly written at very different times(almost 1000 or more years apart) Inand talk 2 different things. The subject matter among the 2 are wide apart. If Hindu apologists says that Upanishads are supposed to be "Knowledge of the Vedas" or ending of the vedas ....... How can something of 10,000 mantras be the ending of something of 1000 mantras?.

I don't know. Thats why I am asking polite questions instead of debating. I am here to learn not teach. I do enjoy the conversations I have with my friends and business partners from India.

They are impressed that I even have a clue about their beliefs and try to explain things of interest to me.

The most fascinating subject we have discussed is arranged marriages and what that is like for them.

 

[Gaura Priya]

The point here is this : 1. There are 4 vedas - Rig/Soma/Vajur/Arharveda. They mainly contain stuff about calling different Gods for material prosperity, sacrifices, rituals, vividly describe Heaven (Afterlife), and some black/white magic and various other sacrifices. Total verses(Mantras) of these 4 vedas = 1000 or so. Now there are the Upanishads (108 of them and still counting)....they number upto 10,000 slokas or more and each of them contain philosophical aspects of Soul and Atman and how Soul and Atman can reach each other. Then Upanishads also talk about samsara and rebirth etc. Now it is very clear that the 2 are no way related to each other and were clearly written at very different times(almost 1000 or more years apart) Inand talk 2 different things. The subject matter among the 2 are wide apart. If Hindu apologists says that Upanishads are supposed to be "Knowledge of the Vedas" or ending of the vedas ....... How can something of 10,000 mantras be the ending of something of 1000 mantras?.

That's why I love the Gita! So simple, so sublime, and is definitely my religious text of choice!

 

[Manish_agarwal]

I don't know. Thats why I am asking polite questions instead of debating. I am here to learn not teach. I do enjoy the conversations I have with my friends and business partners from India.

They are impressed that I even have a clue about their beliefs and try to explain things of interest to me.

The most fascinating subject we have discussed is arranged marriages and what that is like for them.

Its due to the Caste System. Marriage in Hinduism is endogamous(within caste only). Initially a system of 4 varnas or castes -Priest,Soldier,Businessmen and Servant expanded into 6000 castes today.

It has divided the society beyond repair. Apart from the obvious genetic issues with lack of intermixing and spreading of genes causing retarted/stunted growth among Indians it has also created problems with finding potential partners etc. And the divide is REAL - The food habits, behaviour, even festivals differ among each of the different castes. Almost all the Hindus I know of prefer to interact only within their own castes and show indifference to people not belonging to one of them.

But unfortunately the most troubled are those belonging to the lower 2 castes - Servants and outcastes.

Any way this system of divison has support even today among the orthodox priestly class (Brahmins) .

 

[Reverend Rick]

Its due to the Caste System. Marriage in Hinduism is endogamous(within caste only). Initially a system of 4 varnas or castes -Priest,Soldier,Businessmen and Servant expanded into 6000 castes today.

It has divided the society beyond repair. Apart from the obvious genetic issues with lack of intermixing and spreading of genes causing retarted/stunted growth among Indians it has also created problems with finding potential partners etc. And the divide is REAL - The food habits, behaviour, even festivals differ among each of the different castes. Almost all the Hindus I know of prefer to interact only within their own castes and show indifference to people not belonging to one of them.

But unfortunately the most troubled are those belonging to the lower 2 castes - Servants and outcastes.

Any way this system of divison has support even today among the orthodox priestly class (Brahmins) .

I have heard stories about elephants and tigers as well. The people I deal with are very educated and have much more wealth and privilege than most of us Americans.

 

[Manish_agarwal]

I have heard stories about elephants and tigers as well. The people I deal with are very educated and have much more wealth and privilege than most of us Americans.

They seem educated but they arent. India has not had a nobel prize of repute since long and science in India is considered at the same level of African countries.

It dosent take only brains to reach the top. People use different methods to do that. I hope you do know that.....

 

[K.Venugopal]

There are, in fact, many similarities between religions and of all religions with Islam. It is, in fact, proof that they were revealed by the same God although humans messed with them as time progressed.

If there are similarities between religions it is not just because they were all revealed by the same God, it is also because the common denominator in all religions is the same - man.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Sorry please open the Vedas and the Upanishad and read it yourself. They are in no way connected to each other. Their philosophies are different with each other.
In fact they contradict each other all forms.

Even if the Vedas and Upanishads contradict each other, they are both the heritage of Hindus and hence form part of Hinduism. While a Hindu is given the freedom to select and reject whatever he wants, he is also given the freedom to coalesce all teachings into one whole and benefit thereby.

 

[K.Venugopal]

If you see the Vedic religion which is what the Brahmins believe......it is very similar to Islam.

Aspect of Vedic religion:
1. Belief in scriptures - vedas
2. Belief in Heaven/hell after death and 1 life.
3. Belief in 1 God.

So Vedic religion is very similar to Islam

While we may perceive similarities between Vedas and Quran if only for the reason that both are addressed to the same entity - man, it does not thereby mean there are no differences of approach between both the scriptures. According to me the biggest difference between Islam, the religion engendered by the Quran and Hinduism, the religious culture (rather than a single religion) engendered by Vedas (among other scriptures) is that the Quran talks about God as a countable object whereas the Vedas talk about God not as countable object but as the undifferentiated subject.

 

[Riverwolf]

Nowhere are the Upanishad exlaining the 4 Vedas.

The first chapters of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is an explanation of the Ashwamedha Yagya. ^_^

While your argument is sort of correct, it's also sort of incorrect. The Vedic Samhitas are hymns devoted to various gods. Books 2-7 of the Rig Veda came from different families, so of course there's going to be some contradictions within them, let alone beyond them. The samhitas aren't meant to be religious teachings; they're just hymns for the most part. They contain the beliefs of the authors, but that's not the same thing. Therefore, we can't determine exactly what the Vedic religion was based only on the Samhitas. Even the Brahmanas are insufficient due to the fact that they are just manuals for the yagyas.

The Atharva Veda is in a class all on its own; the later Vedic hymns and the parts of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (which, BTW, is one of the oldest ones and is attached directly to the Shatapatha Brahmana, the Kanva recension, I believe, of the Sukla Yajur Veda), only speaks of three: Rik, Saman, and Yajus.

Just as modern Hinduism is really an umbrella of many religions, it's clear to me that Vedism also represents many religions, either based on region, varna, and ashrama. Therefore, one region's interpretation may have believed in only one life on earth, while a neighboring region would say that we have many. In either case, the latter is what would become the dominant belief, and is primarily what the Buddha was reacting to.

 

[chinu]

I am Arab, but Arab is not in me and I am not in Hind but Hind is in me ?

"God" is like a "Sea" and "Saints" are like different "Coast" of the same "Sea".

So... An Arabian Saint (Coast) can say: I am Arabian (Sea/God), But Arabian Coast is not in me --- That because he himself is that Arabian Coast, or that Saint.
Further he can also say: I am not in Hind (Means he is not that coast), But Hind is in me (Because the Sea is one but coast are different).

I hope you can understand.

_/\_
Chinu