• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let' s change Hindu back to Santan [Vaidic] Dharma

What do you think?

  • Possible: Bhārat (in international English) and Sanātan Vaidic Dharma

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • Possible: Bhārat (in international English) and Sanātan Dharma

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wish we could, but I think it is very difficult

    Votes: 5 50.0%
  • ameyAtmA is crazy

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
मैत्रावरुणिः;3646715 said:
Do you know the breakdown, or origin, of the compound, "bhaga-vAn"?

Bhaga means " opulence " and van means " possessor " .

The Sanskrit word bhagavan is explained in the Vishnu Purana (6.5.74, Venkateshvara edition 1910) by the great authority, Parashara Muni, the father of Vyasa Deva, defines Bhagavan as one who possesses six opulences completely, as follows:

" The Supreme god who possesses all riches, all strength, all fame, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation is called Bhagavan. There are many persons who are very rich, very powerful, very beautiful, very famous, very learned, and very much detached, but no one can claim that he possesses all riches, all strength, etc., entirely. "

And bhagavan ganesha, bhagavan shiva or krishna or ram represents Bhagavan. :)
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Hinduism♥Krishna;3646700 said:
Lord agni or Indra are not Moksha givers like vishnu, shiva or Ganesha. Because I didn't find any incident in purana wherein indra or agni gives moksha to someone.
Yes, Indra, Agni, Soma, Vishvedevas, Ashwins, and Varuna cannot give moksha because they were Aryan Gods. Shiva, Ganesha, and now, Vishnu (after amalgamation with Rama and Krishna), can give moksha because they are indigenous. It is so apparent, unless one has his/her prejudices.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3646715 said:
.. all of which profess that the "current" form of the Veda-s are "redacted" - that, once upon a time, many years ago, there were numerous, and I mean quite numerous, Sukta-s that were lost. The "current" form, especially that of the Rg-Veda, is a collection of "scattered" hymns that "survived".
We have to build on what we have, not on what we have lost. That is speculation.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
मैत्रावरुणिः;3646715 said:
For example, Devi Usha has some of the best Rica-s ascribed to her. "Indologically speaking", these Rica-s put other Rica-s to shame because of the amount of intricacy and structure -- it's practically a wet dream for Sanskritists because it shows to them some of the best formulations of Vedic grammar and syntax. Yet, since her lacking of having quantitative hymns makes her "minor", even though such an action is theologically incorrect.
It was not Devi Usha, it was 30 Ushas, sisters, who walked in harmony, one after the other. Ushas (Ushasah - 21 hymns) lost because of wanderings of Aryans, from a place where dawn lasted for 30 days to where dawn was just a one-hour affair.

"The first hint, regarding the long duration of the Vedic dawn, is obtained from the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, IV, 7. Before commencing the Gavâm-ayana sacrifice, there is a long recitation of not less than a thousand verses, to be recited by the Hotṛi priest. This Ashvina-shastra, as it is called, is addressed to Agni, Uṣhas and Ashvins, which deities rule at the end of the night and the commencement of the day. It is the longest recitation to be recited by the Hotṛi and the time for reciting it is after midnight, when “the darkness of the night is about to be relieved by the light of the dawn” (Nir. XII, I; Ashv. Shr. Sutra, VI, 5, 8).* The same period of time is referred to also in the Ṛig-Veda, VII, 67, 2 and 3. The shastra is so long, that the Hotṛi, who has to recite it, is directed to refresh himself by drinking beforehand melted butter after sacrificing thrice a little of it (Ait. Br. IV, 7; Ashv. Shr. Sûtra; VI, 5, 3). “He ought to eat ghee,” observes the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, “before he commences repeating. Just as in this world a cart or a carriage goes well if smeared (with oil),† thus his repeating proceeds well if he be smeared with ghee (by eating it).”

It is evident that if such a recitation has to be finished before the rising of the sun, either the Hotṛi must commence his task soon after midnight when it is dark, or the duration of the dawn must then have been sufficiently long to enable the priest to finish the recitation in time after commencing to recite it on the first appearance of light on the horizon as directed. The first supposition is out of the question, as it is expressly laid down that the shastra, is not to be recited until the darkness of the night is relieved by light. So between the first appearance of light and the rise of the sun, there must have been, in those days, time enough to recite the long laudatory song of not less than a thousand verses. Nay, in the Taittirîya Saṁhitâ (II, 1, 10, 3) we are told that sometimes the recitation of the shastra though commenced at the proper time, ended long before sunrise, and in that case, the Saṁhitâ requires that a certain animal sacrifice should be performed. Ashvalâyana directs that in such a case the recitation should be continued up to sunrise by reciting other hymns (Ashv. S.S. VI, 5, 8); while Âpastamba (S.S. XIV, 1 and 2), after mentioning the sacrifice referred to in the Taittirîya Saṁhitâ, adds that all the ten Maṇḍalas of the Ṛig-Veda may be recited, if necessary, in such a case."
Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak — The Arctic Home in the Vedas — Chapter 5, Vedic Dawns, page 76

"But a still more remarkable statement is found in I, 113, 13, where the poet distinctly asserts, “the Goddess Uṣhas dawned continually or perpetually (shashvat) in former days (purâ);” and the adjective shashvat-tamâ (the most lasting) is applied to the dawn in I, 118, 11.

Ṛig. I, 113, 13, — शश्वत पुरोषा वयुवास देव्यथो अद्येदं वयावो मघोनी । अथो वयुछादुत्तराननु दयूनजराम्र्ता चरति सवधाभिः ॥
(Shâshvat purosha vayuvâsa devyatho adyedam vayâvo maghoni | Atho vyuchhaduttarânanu dyunajaramratâ charati savadhâbhih ||

RigVeda is saying so very plainly, but you are not listening. And Aryans accepted the indigenous religion and became Hindus. That is why the matter pertains to HinduDIR.
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Yes, Indra, Agni, Soma, Vishvedevas, Ashwins, and Varuna cannot give moksha because they were Aryan Gods. Shiva, Ganesha, and now, Vishnu (after amalgamation with Rama and Krishna), can give moksha because they are indigenous. .

Nonsense ! Certainly You are a नास्तिक . हिन्दु वैदिक धर्म has great danger from persons like you.

What are aryans ? Author of veda , vedavyas clearly mentioned aryans who are original habitants of bharatvarsha , not the foreigners. Aryan mean noble . It means persons who have got birth in bramhan ,kshatriya ,vaishya and shudra varnas , are noble persons ie they are aryans . In todays language , they are called as Hindus .

Indra, Agni, Soma, krishna ,shiva etc , these all gods are aryan/hindu Gods .
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
मैत्रावरुणिः;3646715 said:
Far from it. In fact, if it wasn't for Vishnu, Vrtra/encompassing darkness would never have been "torn apart" in order for "go/light" to come through. He is also one of the very few to be ascribed a place of highest footing.
MV, It was mostly Indra who was Vritraghna. Vishnu, Ashwins, Mitra, and even Atharvans and Angirasas are mentions as killers of Vritra is some verses. Indra was the 'Shatakratu' (the doer of hundred deeds, the breaker of 100 forts of Vritra and other dasas/dasyus), because the duration of the long, dark, and cold Arctic night (Ati-Ratra) in RigVeda is 'two months and never more than a hundred days'.
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Bal gangadhar Tilak , Dayananda sarswati and aurobinda dismissed AIT and always questioned " If the aryans were foreigners , why is that they don't name places outside of India as their religious places ? Why do vedas glorify only places within Bharavarsha ? :rolleyes:

And what about that indra , agni devatas ! They are just minor gods , not the supreme gods .

In fact , agni and Indra like gods are under the effect of maya , while krishna is parabramhan and is beyond maya. Maya in the form of pride eats Devatas . The indra who has pride about his wealth , beauty and women ! These all are paths to hell . The indra who is always frightened of vishnu and shiva . It is the Indra who did the battle with Krishna :eek: and It is the Indra who was frightened by Krishna and krishna conquered indra .

Indra in company of women and enjoys them ! Women is the greatest weapon of Maya and Indra desires it much . Really Indra has everything but he doesn't have Detachment . How unlucky he is ! In this world , there is no bondage like women . And deluded persons worship them as supreme .

For moksha seekers , most part of veda is useless . For them Dnyana-khanda is important , not the Karmakhanda.

Note : I am not against worshipping devatas . Devatas must be worshipped . Because afterall they are running this universe ! ;) and Hindu dharma teaches us to worship every god.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Hinduism♥Krishna;3647418 said:
Bal gangadhar Tilak .. dismissed AIT ..
You make me laugh, HLK. Do not comment on things that you don't know a fig about. Did you notice the title of Tilak's book? It is "Arctic Home in Vedas". Tilak did say that dasas/dasyus were not inhabitants of India as erroronously thought, but they were demons who Aryans thought imprisoned the sun for two months during the Arctic night, and that the original homeland or Aryans was thousands of miles away from India and inside the Arctic Circle. Do you know what is Arctic? North Pole or South Pole? And what is the Arctic Circle?[/QUOTE]Women is the greatest weapon of Maya .. there is no bondage like women.[/QUOTE]I wonder whether you will marry or not!
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
RigVeda is saying so very plainly, but you are not listening.

I would be more than willing to listen, but parroting Tilak is no different than parroting that 1+1 equals 7. Right now, the most widely accepted theory is Middle & Southern Central Asia @3000-2500 BCE. Definitely not the Arctic.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yes, most accepted. But Tilak is not talking about that. Tilak is talking about the oldest period, when Aryans had just left their homeland, 8000 years ago or earlier, that is why Gathas mention a deluge by snow, where they had a two-month long night and a one month dawn. Yes, later they might have stayed in Kazakh steppes and also in Central Asian steppes. They came to India from there. Tilak gives the references at every point. Criticism should also be based on proof. After all, the old Roman calendar had only 304 days. Where are the two missing months?
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Aup,

First of all, my original post (the long one) had nothing to do with historical facets - I was expressing a theological facet of the Sukta-s and Rica-s of the Rg-Veda. Your post about various "Usha-s" was quite a digression - something that I feared would most definitely occur in conversing with you on anything dealing with the Veda-s. There is nothing in the Rg-Veda that expresses one to harbor the correlation of quantity over quality - thus, using VedA~ngic theological views on the Sukta-s, all I did was relay the religious notions of the ShAkhA-s that each Sukta is separate and since each is a divine revelation from the Shri Gods - the notion of "Indra being the most Supreme because he has the most amount of hymns" has no theological backing. Heck, if you want me to get really technical, I'd be more than willing to articulate a very cohesive and extremely strong argument on why and how Shri Varuna is the "most Supreme God" - but, I won't do that because that would be another digression.

My post had nothing to do with Aryan this and Aryan that. In fact, it was you that digressed instead of staying on the topic - and that topic was: Indra is NOT the most Supreme God of the Rg-Veda. And, since this is the HinduDIR, there is nothing wrong with sticking by theological aspects. However, using Indological viewpoints on explaining your digressed point regarding Aryan this and Aryan that is not only unwarranted, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is also not representative of the HinduDIR.

And, if you view this as criticism...that's just unfortunate and sad. And, if you view this post as dogmatic....that's even more unfortunate. Since, I am all ears regarding historical views of the Indo-Iranian linguistic groups, and do not confine myself to one view, since historians and Indologists themselves always state: we are always open to changing our views if new findings are made evident.

Yes, most accepted. But Tilak is not talking about that.

The current stance on IIr: Central Asia is the origin, not Tilak's Arctic.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The degression comes when people say that Hinduism is Vedic dharma, and I suppose you would agree that this is not true. Hinduism is much more than just being Vedic dharma. I think the statement does not give due credit to indigenous religion.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
The degression comes when people say that Hinduism is Vedic dharma, and I suppose you would agree that this is not true. Hinduism is much more than just being Vedic dharma. I think the statement does not give due credit to indigenous religion.

Well, that brings up the following questions...what do you see as "indigenous", and does "indigenous" really matter and does it shake the very core of "Hinduism" in a spiritual and mystical way?

Personally, I wouldn't be bothered if "Hinduism" was "created" on a different planet in a different galaxy. It in no way changes Dharma. Dharma is based on practice, not superficialities.


Really? I always thought that most linguists view Eastern Europe as the most likely origin place, around 3500 BC: Yamna culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, you are correct. I meant Central Asia for IIr, not PIE. I retract my earlier statement.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Really? I always thought that most linguists view Eastern Europe as the most likely origin place, around 3500 BC: Yamna culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Samara culture is considered the eneolithic culture of the region, along with the subsequent Khvalynsk culture and the still later early Yamna culture."
Samara culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (ca 5500–4800 BC)

aupmanyav-albums-vraja-picture4989-samara.jpg


And how far is Arctic Circle from Samara? One is already half-way there with no major geographical obstruction to negotiate. It is not outlandish as it appears on first sight. :)
मैत्रावरुणिः;3647734 said:
.. what do you see as "indigenous", and does "indigenous" really matter and does it shake the very core of "Hinduism" in a spiritual and mystical way?
It tells us how we arrived at modern Hinduism. You see, the philosophical statements are mostly in the later books of RigVeda, Mandala 1, 9, and 10, by which time Aryans were in India and that is when the Upanishads were written. It would not have been possible without the brotherly interaction of the two cultures. It does not shake, it supports.
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
And how far is Arctic Circle from Samara? One is already half-way there:)

But, it is not the Arctic Circle. Tilak's view states that the origin was in the Arctic Circle...where as the mainstream, widely accepted theories stress locations that are not. Either way, none of this matters as it pertains to the Rg-Veda, which is an Ancient Indian text. The talks of PIE and even a hypothetical pre-PIE are not that important to solving any "mysteries" of the Rg-Veda. This is why mainstream scholars always mostly concentrate on PII (Proto-Indo-Iranian) and subsequent Indo-Iranian identities which are undoubtedly given a stable identity of "becoming" in Middle and Southern Central Asia.

It tells us how we arrived at modern Hinduism. You see, the philosophical statements are mostly in the later books of RigVeda, Mandala 1, 9, and 10, by which time Aryans were in India and that is when the Upanishads were written. It would not have been possible without the brotherly interaction of the two cultures.

It still doesn't take away the fact that none of it really matters...there were various religious groups at the time, and each influenced one another directly and/or indirectly. Apart from the digressions you have "proposed", I still fail to see what your argument/point is. No mainstream scholar disputes a lay-Hindu's claim to refer to him/herself as "Vedic". If I recall correctly, even Witzel argued that "Hinduism" can easily be treated as "Vedic" and/or as a successor to Vedic, with many qualities that are purely Vedic retained, especially since the collective identity known as Hindu is just that...collective: made up of a myriad variations each different from each other, whereas there are still "Vedic" groups that are not that much different than that which can be found in the earliest BrAhmaNa-s and Samhita-s.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
That is not what my friends AmeyaAtma and HLK are ready to accept. I want them to come out of this chauvinist Hindu mold. It does not behove us.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Haha. Ouch! But, really: whether "Hinduism" has its origins in Tokyo, Seattle, on planet Mars or in a different galaxy...it does not shake Hinduism to its core at all; it's completely irrelevant. For example, I don't hear Muslims complaining that Islam was founded in modern-day Saudi Arabia or that Mecca is not located in Pakistan, India, Morocco, or Indonesia - it just is what it is; likewise, I don't hear many Christians complaining that Jesus wasn't a European or that he was a Middle Easterner - it doesn't shake the foundations of Christianity at all - again, it is just what it is. Same with "Hinduism" - it doesn't really do anything to destabilize Dharma. Either way, a majority of Indophiles (or, I should say: Hinduphiles) are more interested in the Upanishads, the Gita, and related scriptures before they decide to become full-fledged, practicing Hindu sisters and brothers themselves no different than you and me, not really spiritually interested in the Veda-s (maybe I'm the outlier in the box-and-whisker plot, hehe ;)). Heck, Hare Krishna is taking Europe by storm, not yajna-oriented shAkhA-s. This could incidentally be one of the greatest things to be happening to "Hinduism" right now - 'cause it looks to me as if it is spreading for the right reasons, not superficial reasons. And, isn't it written in a few Hindu scriptures that Dharma was widespread, found all over Prithivi?
 
Last edited:

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3648263 said:
It still doesn't take away the fact that none of it really matters...there were various religious groups at the time, and each influenced one another directly and/or indirectly. Apart from the digressions you have "proposed", I still fail to see what your argument/point is. No mainstream scholar disputes a lay-Hindu's claim to refer to him/herself as "Vedic". If I recall correctly, even Witzel argued that "Hinduism" can easily be treated as "Vedic" and/or as a successor to Vedic, with many qualities that are purely Vedic retained, especially since the collective identity known as Hindu is just that...collective: made up of a myriad variations each different from each other, whereas there are still "Vedic" groups that are not that much different than that which can be found in the earliest BrAhmaNa-s and Samhita-s.
Why would you not want to consider the R^igveda as not only Indian and "Indo-Iranian," but also "Indo-European" in general? How else can you explain how a Vedic/Hindu goddess like dAnu (who is still worshipped by people in balidvIpa, see here) was worshipped practically half a world apart by the ancient Celts in Ireland (see here), but not among Zoroastrians and Tocharians? Also, before you say that dAnu isn't technically a goddess, but the mother of dAnava-s (vR^itra, namuchi, etc., but not daitya-s), I realize that, but the viShNupurANa states that dAnu was one of the forms of shrI lakShmI which appeared at the samudramanthanam and was eugolized by shakra (indra). If she's worthy of worship by a deva, then she's certainly worthy of worship by people. :)
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |

Why would you not want to consider the R^igveda as not only Indian and "Indo-Iranian," but also "Indo-European" in general?

I'm stumped by this question not because I can't answer it...I know I can...but the overuse of negatives (e.g., "not") is confusing me [and, I was never good with negatives when it came to writing, BTW - so definitely pardon me for this].

And, are you asking, why I, as in me [or, do you mean as in general - asking everyone but with an impersonal "you"], do not consider the Rg-Veda as "Indo-European" in general, instead of solely considering it as Indian and/or Indo-Iranian? As in, why IIr, but not generally I-E?

Also, before you say that dAnu isn't technically a goddess, but the mother of dAnava-s (vR^itra, namuchi, etc., but not daitya-s), I realize that, but the viShNupurANa states that dAnu was one of the forms of shrI lakShmI which appeared at the samudramanthanam and was eugolized by shakra (indra). If she's worthy of worship by a deva, then she's certainly worthy of worship by people.

I see her as a Goddess.
 
Last edited:

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3648370 said:
And, are you asking, why I, as in me [or, do you mean as in general - asking everyone but with an impersonal "you"], do not consider the Rg-Veda as "Indo-European" in general, instead of solely considering it as Indian and/or Indo-Iranian? As in, why IIr, but not generally I-E?
Yes...
Also, I mean you in particular.. :)
 
Last edited:
Top