What's new

Questions about Hinduism

speed said:
who are the famous hindu scholars of today?
Click to expand...

speed said:
Is sai baba considered a scholar?
Click to expand...

Sai Baba is considered a God man (by some) but he isn't considered a proper scholar.
Asaram Bapu and all are not really scholars (maybe considered by some but that's it).
RSS preachers are considered proper scholars too (in general).
And guys like Nithyananda and all are frauds and they are many like them in India.

Kanchi Shankaracharya (leaving aside his issues) is a proper scholar (knowledge wise) and focuses on the Advaita philosophy.

In Hindus, there are 2 kinds of people

1. People who follow religion but not the texts as much (they may or may not follow scholars with strong religious knowledge)
2. People who follow religioun as well as texts (they will only follow scholars of their sect with strong religious knowledge)

Another example of a scholar I would give is Velukudi Krishnan. More closer to the sect I follow. Apart from one key issue, its pretty much the same. Has quite a few Youtube videos and does come on TV at times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velukkudi_Krishnan

But apart from him, the ones who really know stuff aren't really famous and they don't venture out for such stuff.

Another thing is that here is a guru shishya parampara here and its strictly followed by the very religious communities. Meaning the first thing someone would ask a learned person is "who is your guru". If he tells he learnt it by his own and gives some random name (that no one in the sect has heard), his religious credentials aren't considered solid. Guru lineage is tracked. That's the only way to ensure the information (explanations) doesn't get distorted. Its ok to debate but one must have learnt from reputable gurus.
 
Last edited:
adit_sh said:
I will not be surprised if Mahatma Gandhi is considered as God 100 years later
Click to expand...

True bro.

There is a Durdhoyan temple in Kerela or somewhere.

I won't be surprised if one of the million Godmen in India claim to be God reincarnated.

Anything is possible in India. ;-)
 
brute said:
AFAIK the caste system wasn't prevelant in ancient India.

The caste system began with the arrival of the Aryans in India. The Aryans arrived in India around 1500 BC. Before the Aryans there were other communities in India of other origins. Among them Negrito, Mongoloid, Austroloid and Dravidian. The Negrito have physical features similar to people of Africa. The Mongoloid have Chinese features. The Austroloids have features similar the aboriginals of Australia. The Dravidians originate from the Mediterranean and they were the largest community in India. When the Aryans arrived in India their main contact was with the Dravidians and the Austroloids. They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and at the same time pushed the local people southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north India.

The Aryans organized among themselves in three groups. The first group was of the warriors and they were called Rajayana, later they changed their name Rajayana to Kshatria. The second group was of the priests and they were called Brahmans. These two groups struggled politically for leadership among the Aryans. In this struggle the Brahmans got to be the leaders of the Aryan society. The third group was of the farmers and craftsmen and they were called Vaisia. The Aryans who conquered and took control over parts of north India subdued the locals and made them their servants. In this process the Vaisias who were the farmers and the craftsmen became the landlords and the businessmen of the society and the locals became the peasants and the craftsmen of the society.

In order to secure their status the Aryans resolved some social and religious rules which, allowed only them to be the priests, warriors and the businesmen of the society.
Click to expand...

This is what my understanding is too.
 
Stewie said:
By the way my last post is not mean to cause any emotional harm or to offend anyone. I just shared my personal observation, which might be inaccurate and I look forward to reading more on the subject from the Hindu posters here.
Click to expand...

No offence taken buddy, people here in this thread have been great....

Stewie said:
While I can appreciate your willingness to admit to this, I think this is what most Muslims would want to hear.


See with us followers of the Abrahamic faiths, the divinity of our spiritual beliefs matter a lot. If it is not absolute, it means it is not the word of God. And if it is not the word of God, it means its man made and subject to human interpretation.

You see this school of thought even more with Islam. In fact one of the reasons, why we consider Judism and Christianity to be dissimilar to Islam, (even though they have the same roots) is because we feel those two religions have been corrupted by man over time, chopped and changed based on the individual needs and preferences and hence do not maintain the original form the message was in as God intended when He bestowed it upon Moses, Jesus, etc.

This is a big debate here as well, but that is why THE LAST PROPHET status of Muhammed (PBUH) is so important to us because we believe our religion is in its absolute complete form with Quran and Fiqh. Our Holy Book has been the same, our laws have been pretty much the same, and they cover most aspects of human life. In Islam, you believe in them without question, because it is a matter of faith,.

In Hinduism, it seems the direct opposite, seems like every poster has his own interpretation and where everyone seems to agree is its aspect of flexibility. To me it sounds like I can do whatever I want and can still be a Hindu. Very arbitrary guidelines and
laws
Click to expand...

I get your point and its right in the sense that the core philosophy can not and should not change in a religion but my point was different. Over last hundreds of years a lot of non sense creeps into society and people start following it and giving it a religious colour, e.g., Sati... Now who in his right mind will burn their womenfolk but people did it, in the name of religion.. If you look at India (Pre 1000 AD) there was no Sati in Hinduism but it came later and then it had to be taken out, People opposed but majority prevailed and its now over....

The overall point I am making is that such things which are nowhere near the core of a religion should be eradicated and I like that in Hinduism that people do this albeit slowly....
 
leg-side-flick said:
Possible and that's actually what I like about Hinduism, it's willingness to adapt and learn......
Click to expand...

That's not adapting and learning, it's plagiarism. Taking every new idea then calling it Hinduism is cheating slightly is it not? While I think adopting new ideas is an admirable trait, I'm not sure giving them the cloak of the old brand name is doing justice to where the ideas have originated.
 
PCP_1 said:
Yes the internet promotes open discussion but it is very rare that it changes the opinion of someone. I have discussed this very points in real life too although with dire consequences. I have slowed down with age and mostly other responsibilities.

However just for discussions sake, you seem to be sitting on the fence on most important issues like many posters here.

On the one hand you claim to be a man of science and talk about the need for reform on many issues but on the other you put it all down to having blind faith and not having enough "knowledge" to decide for yourself. On one side you want the scholars of Islam to discuss and determine everything for you and on the other you're vary of Mullahs. You seem to want the best of both worlds. Mamoon and a few others come to.kind. Atleast others like TGK and Chacha know what they want and have the cojones ro stick with it.

Also as SIF mentioned, once its about religion no matter how good your intentions, common sense goes out the window. The written word must be followed no matter what the price to ourselves and others. You believe that you are an inferior being and do not have the intellect or willpower to change something that you think is wrong and is predetermined by a higher entity.

Systematic indoctrination and pride also come into play. If well educated and reasonable people who have been living in a free soceity like yourself can defend these outdated ideas and burdens of the forefathers then there is no hope for the others.
Click to expand...

Well, I am definitely not apologizing for my faith. And I dont think I have to defend my position on the stance either, whether you consider it kosher or sitting on the fence, etc is irrelevant.

With changing times, there are certain aspects of our way of life that may need a revisit and I think it needs to be done by the proper religious scholars for those of us who follow religion closely to have the inner satisfaction that it is in accordance with the law.

I absolutely and vehemently disagree with your opinion that common sense goes out the window when we talk about religion. That statement may hold true for certain aspects of religions across the world but as a whole, NO!



Besides we live in civilized times, where we abide by the laws of every country we live in. When you rely on the judgments of people in higher authorities to make laws that govern your day to day life, how is that any different from the scenario you posted?

My point is, being part of a civilization entails you follow certain rules and guidelines. In the absence of such organized, structures governments in the past, religion played a primary role in keeping everybody in line. At a moral level it still plays a strong role today. I do not think it
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
That's not adapting and learning, it's plagiarism. Taking every new idea then calling it Hinduism is cheating slightly is it not? While I think adopting new ideas is an admirable trait, I'm not sure giving them the cloak of the old brand name is doing justice to where the ideas have originated.
Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of this cheating / plagiarism that you think Hinduism has done ?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Giving up the Hindu custom of Sati. Was that down to the Moghuls/British or was it Hindus themselves who decided this was an outdated concept?
Click to expand...

I am not getting your point. Can you elaborate reg the plagiarism reg this issue?

Forced Sati was never in the ruling. Optional sati was (for kshatriya women only). Eg - Pandu's 2 wives (on lived and one died according to their choice).

Some community practiced forced sati which doesn't make it valid. They were still wrong and glad its abolished legally.
 
Last edited:
sensible-indian-fan said:
I am not getting your point. Can you elaborate reg the plagiarism reg this issue?

Forced Sati was never in the ruling. Optional sati was (for kshatriya women only). Eg - Pandu's 2 wives (on lived and one died according to their choice).

Some community practiced forced sati which doesn't make it valid. They were still wrong and glad its abolished legally.
Click to expand...
Leave Pandu.None of Lord Rams mothers commited SATI after his Father King Dasrath died.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
I am not getting your point. Can you elaborate reg the plagiarism reg this issue?

Forced Sati was never in the ruling. Optional sati was (for kshatriya women only). Eg - Pandu's 2 wives (on lived and one died according to their choice).

Some community practiced forced sati which doesn't make it valid. They were still wrong and glad its abolished legally.
Click to expand...

What is there to elaborate? It has been claimed that the strength of Hinduism is that it can adapt to anything, which I said was admirable, but then you can't adopt something from western world then still call it Hinduism. Sati was banned by British East India company in 1829. Was that Christian inspired action or in fact Hinduism carried out by the British?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
What is there to elaborate? It has been claimed that the strength of Hinduism is that it can adapt to anything, which I said was admirable, but then you can't adopt something from western world then still call it Hinduism. Sati was banned by British East India company in 1829. Was that Christian inspired action or in fact Hinduism carried out by the British?
Click to expand...

Ok...so what did Hinduism claim from this Sati ban?

Forced Sati wasn't allowed anyway but some communities did it and British banned it.
 
I don't understand how you can be atheist and still follow Hinduism as some posters have mentioned. Either you follow it, or you don't. It just seems like a method to try make it seem like the religion is moderate and modern compared to other religions and without any of the bad bits.
 
adit_sh said:
Vishwamitra was not a born Brahmin - do you know? Based on his work/knowledge he was called a brahmin.
Brahmin/Kshatriyas are just the classification and nothing to do with what God has given to us.
Rama was born kshatriya but he showed that all people are equal by eating shabari's ber. He was out to prove that caste system is just a classification based on the work and nothing else.

The curse of Karna was for the lie and not for being a shudra or kshatriya.

very simple, u believe in one god who stays in vaikuntam ( brahman okate), do u think he will classify his creation on the basis of birth?
Click to expand...


I guess thats why he beheaded Shambuka for learning the Vedas
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Giving up the Hindu custom of Sati. Was that down to the Moghuls/British or was it Hindus themselves who decided this was an outdated concept?
Click to expand...

Sati was not part of religion but had seeped into Social fabric of some communities in India, it was kicked out later with a lot of difficulty...

Raja RamMohan Roy vigorously campaigned against it and educated the masses to get rid of this custom as
No government ban can force people to change their religious custom unless and until they willingly accept and oblige...

So I don't know why you would call this cheating....
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Ok...so what did Hinduism claim from this Sati ban?

Forced Sati wasn't allowed anyway but some communities did it and British banned it.
Click to expand...

Let me expand on Cpt Rishwat's comments a bit because I think I understand where he is coming from.


The point is same I was trying to make earlier that if you believe in something, a religion, a philosophy, way of life, etc then it has to be absolute. If you start chopping and changing as a means to adapt to times or to your own preferences then its not in its true form. If you start adapting practices or ideologies of other religions (and I dont mean negative stuff, obviously you do it because it is positive for you) then really what you are practicing is a form of your original beliefs mixed in with other beliefs. So thats where his idea of plagiarism is coming from, a bit crude but I think it is a fair point.

It sort of dilutes the authenticity and genuine nature of your original belief, wouldn't you say?

and I did not say this with a particular aspect in mind, I see you guys debating Satti. My observation is more in a general sense.
 
I will say that Ramayana and Mahabharata are stories of people who died protesting caste system and were later portrayed as villains by the scholars.

Duryodhana was also an atheist. He believed in equality and one outcome of that was he made Karna (whom everyone believed to be a low caste) as king.

Jarasandha had people from the lower castes as his main commanders. But he was deceived and killed by Krishna who did not favor the breakdown of the caste system.

Why, even Vidura was born to one of the servants in the palace but was lucky to be in a much better position because of Bhishma..

And you say Parasuram cursed Karna only because he lied..Parasuram was supporter of the caste system to the core and his anger was because a supposedly Shudra caste boy had lied and learned the use of weapons from him..

I think Ravana also though proud to be a half brahmin believed in equality..same with case of Mahabali who was deceived by Vishnu just because he believed all people were equal..
 
Stewie said:
Let me expand on Cpt Rishwat's comments a bit because I think I understand where he is coming from.


The point is same I was trying to make earlier that if you believe in something, a religion, a philosophy, way of life, etc then it has to be absolute. If you start chopping and changing as a means to adapt to times or to your own preferences then its not in its true form. If you start adapting practices or ideologies of other religions (and I dont mean negative stuff, obviously you do it because it is positive for you) then really what you are practicing is a form of your original beliefs mixed in with other beliefs. So thats where his idea of plagiarism is coming from, a bit crude but I think it is a fair point.

It sort of dilutes the authenticity and genuine nature of your original belief, wouldn't you say?

and I did not say this with a particular aspect in mind, I see you guys debating Satti. My observation is more in a general sense.
Click to expand...

I get the general point.

I was asking about the Sati example he gave.
 
So sati is more a cultural phenomenon than religious? As in it is not considered holy, permissible, etc in the religious scriptures?
 
Stewie said:
Let me expand on Cpt Rishwat's comments a bit because I think I understand where he is coming from.


The point is same I was trying to make earlier that if you believe in something, a religion, a philosophy, way of life, etc then it has to be absolute. If you start chopping and changing as a means to adapt to times or to your own preferences then its not in its true form. If you start adapting practices or ideologies of other religions (and I dont mean negative stuff, obviously you do it because it is positive for you) then really what you are practicing is a form of your original beliefs mixed in with other beliefs. So thats where his idea of plagiarism is coming from, a bit crude but I think it is a fair point.

It sort of dilutes the authenticity and genuine nature of your original belief, wouldn't you say?

and I did not say this with a particular aspect in mind, I see you guys debating Satti. My observation is more in a general sense.
Click to expand...

But Sati was not part of religion, no Hindu woman was supposed to be killed along with her dead husband in the first place and thank heaven's we adapted...
 
karthikc said:
I will say that Ramayana and Mahabharata are stories of people who died protesting caste system and were later portrayed as villains by the scholars.

Duryodhana was also an atheist. He believed in equality and one outcome of that was he made Karna (whom everyone believed to be a low caste) as king.

Jarasandha had people from the lower castes as his main commanders. But he was deceived and killed by Krishna who did not favor the breakdown of the caste system.

Why, even Vidura was born to one of the servants in the palace but was lucky to be in a much better position because of Bhishma..

And you say Parasuram cursed Karna only because he lied..Parasuram was supporter of the caste system to the core and his anger was because a supposedly Shudra caste boy had lied and learned the use of weapons from him..

I think Ravana also though proud to be a half brahmin believed in equality..same with case of Mahabali who was deceived by Vishnu just because he believed all people were equal..
Click to expand...

Bro...caste system is real but I feel you are taking different situations and trying to find a co relation when none exist.

1. Duryodhan desperately wanted to one up Pandavas and that was the MAIN REASON he gave kingdom to Karna. Nothing else.

2. Other examples have no relation with caste thing. Co relation does not mean causation.
 
Stewie said:
So sati is more a cultural phenomenon than religious? As in it is not considered holy, permissible, etc in the religious scriptures?
Click to expand...

Optional sati is there (for kshatriya females) but forced Sati is not.
 
Last edited:
leg-side-flick said:
But Sati was not part of religion, no Hindu woman was supposed to be killed along with her dead husband in the first place and thank heaven's we adapted...
Click to expand...

So, how can you say that Hinduism is a fluid religion that adapts over time yet when a lot of people are doing something (Sati), it is not part of the religion because it was not in the original scriptures?
 
endymion248 said:
Is suicide encouraged in Hinduism? If not then, from a philosophical perspective, there is not much difference between forced and optional.
Click to expand...

Suicide is seriously discouraged in Hinduism.

Wives of kings are under no pressure to die after their husbands. Examples are there in itihas (Ramayana, Mahabharatha) all over.

I don't know the exact reasons for why its allowed (by choice) for kshatriya females so I have to find that out.
 
Pakz said:
I don't understand how you can be atheist and still follow Hinduism as some posters have mentioned. Either you follow it, or you don't. It just seems like a method to try make it seem like the religion is moderate and modern compared to other religions and without any of the bad bits.
Click to expand...

Can someone explain?
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
I get the general point.

I was asking about the Sati example he gave.
Click to expand...

Sati was just one example off the top of my head as it is something which all over the world is more associated with Hindu religion than all others. My point being that it's easy to dismiss every bad aspect of Hindu religion like caste and Sati, then adopt other beliefs and claim this was Hinduism all along as Hinduism is all encompassing (except for the bad bits which are faults of other beliefs and religions).
 
IgnitedMind said:
Research is your friend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

Before you turn all 'sensible' !
Click to expand...

My friend...please read through this whole thread for getting the context of the debate before mocking others.

The discussion here isn't about just Hinduism (as its projected to be) but ALSO about texts and what its all about.

Vedas, Gita and stuff are the texts for Hindus. You can't reject that and call it Hinduism (in the truest sense). That's just a modern version of it for which someone is asking a clarification and for which I said you ask them to get their answer. :)
 
Last edited:
^^^ Bhai ! Context has nothing to with posts....the statement was does atheism have a space in hinduism which you seem to decline...if that was not what you intended ! Sorry !

8 out of the 9 hindu philosophies have nothing to do with god...

First we need to understand the concept of “GOD” what it is to (hindus) and what it is to Theists /Atheists /Agonists
The SUPREME in Abrahamic Religion means “GOD “and HE is a BEING

They believe in god/gods as supreme authority who lays down code of conduct, sits in judgement of man s actions to punish /rewards one with haven/hell after death.

To the (hindus) This SUPREME, is a STATE of super CONSCIOUSNESS they call Paramathma /Brama and It is not a BEING like HE or a SHE. Their aim is MOKSHA, and to them everything is a result of their own action they call KARMA there is no one sitting on top rewarding and punishing.
So technically speaking (hindus) have NO “GOD “and THIS would make them ALL Atheists in the view of Abrahamic Religions .

Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) believes that FREEDOM of THINKING is the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of every man/woman. GOD / no GOD,/ I am GOD is one’s own choice.

This FREEDOM is what gives space for ATHEISTS in (Hinduism) and people say Atheism is a part of (Hinduism).and an Atheist can be both a Hindu and Atheist at the same time.

and to support the above I take from th most common man (hindu) scriptures like Ramayana Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita ,which the (hindus ) live by.

In the Bagavath Geetha,. which is epitomized in the shloka “ Sarva vedhantha saara sangraha bootham idham Bagavath Geetham”…meaning the essence of all the Vedas is contained in this thing called the Bagavath Geetha, after explaining it all ( the Vedas ) in the last chapter Sri Krishna says….

“Ithithe gyanam akkyatham .. Guhyath guhyatharam maya… vimarshasee aasheshena Yethechyasi thatha karu”verce 63 XVIII chapter..meaning …
Thus hath wisdom, most secret of all secrets , been given to thee by ME. Analyse it in detail Then, act as thou desire.
There by leaving the final decision to the individual ,That is U
And to Quote a few more….
Yoga Vashista (the B.G equivalent in Ramayana)

Yukti yuktanaam upadeyam .. baladahpi shukadapi.
Apa yukthanaam PADMA-JANMANA( the one born from the lotus… that is the Bramhan) meaning …. What is within your logical understanding … accept it .. even if it comes from a parrot or a child (here the reference of parrot and child is given as an indications of ignorance)and what dose not fall within your logical reasoning … reject it even if the Brahman tells u So!

Bhagavad Gita Bhashya by Sri Sankaracharya
"Shruthi shathamapi … shetheshu agni , na Prakasho ! …. Naa Grahyam ".
Meaning …. Even if 100 scriptures come and tell me .. Fire is cold .. and has no light…
I cannot digest it.!…

So ALL the (hindu) scriptures one can dismiss if one does not agree with it .
Now does this not provide space for Atheists ?
Click to expand...

http://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-atheist-while-being-Hindu
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Sati was just one example off the top of my head as it is something which all over the world is more associated with Hindu religion than all others. My point being that it's easy to dismiss every bad aspect of Hindu religion like caste and Sati, then adopt other beliefs and claim this was Hinduism all along as Hinduism is all encompassing (except for the bad bits which are faults of other beliefs and religions).
Click to expand...

That part I agree but sati isn't a valid example (expanations given) and leg side flick asked you for examples on what Hinduism plagiarized and called it as their own.
 
as per my knowledge and also with reference to brahma kumaris. I will give you a brief history of Hinduism.
basically there is also one god concept in Hinduism called shiv(not be confused by Lord shiv) or prabhaman. he is point of light, shapeless, formless, ultimate peace source.
however, Hinduism is such a old religion people needed some form to worship there god as they can't worship a point of light. so they created ling(an oval shaped body). shiv comprises of brahma, vishnu, mahesh (lord shivji). as the time passed people needed more visible form of God so that they don't detach from God and hence various statues and shape of Gods were born. regarding the deities, they are nothing but God in form with which the person can connect more. for example, saraswati maa is form of god with educational motive.
the above views are largely taken from brahma kumaris version of Hinduism.
And besides Hinduism is much more inclusive i guess as my friend's second favourite god is jesus after kaali maa.
mostly believe other religion to be as true as Hinduism (except the hardcore Hindu's)
and yeah regarding salvation day, there is 4000 year long cycle with 1000 year in each yug and day of salvation and then heaven or he'll accordingly and after short stay back to satyug for another cycle until you achieve moksha and get free from this cycle. a human soul takes 72 births in one cycle ( i didn't used to belive in this but then i read" many lives many master" by dr. wiess he used past life regression therapy to treat her patient Christy and she in her soul out of body form says this is her 68th birth considering this kalyug right now and we are nearing end of cycle. so it might be true).
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I'm inclined to believe his version over your all encompassing "Hinduism is everything good and the bad comes from somewhere else" version.
Click to expand...

Even good comes from somewhere else !

As long as you believe there are different paths to attaining moksha...you are a hindu ! and the philosophy with which you choose to do that..is in your hands....aside from basic things of doing good and harming no one !
 
IgnitedMind said:
^^^ Bhai ! Context has nothing to with posts....the statement was does atheism have a space in hinduism which you seem to decline...if that was not what you intended ! Sorry !

8 out of the 9 hindu philosophies have nothing to do with god...



http://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-atheist-while-being-Hindu
Click to expand...

Supreme consciousness can't be equated to atheism (which is a belief that no such supreme force in action).

Its just word play.

I will go through your post in detail tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
sensible-indian-fan said:
That part I agree but sati isn't a valid example (expanations given) and leg side flick asked you for examples on what Hinduism plagiarized and called it as their own.
Click to expand...

Sati was outlawed by the British after several failed attempts by the Mughals to do so. If it wasn't part of Hindu culture, then why were Hindus so reluctant to give it up? This is like me claiming that jihad was a western concept adopted from the Crusaders and the barbarians before them that inspired it in 1000BC.
 
IgnitedMind said:
Even good comes from somewhere else !

As long as you believe there are different paths to attaining moksha...you are a hindu ! and the philosophy with which you choose to do that..is in your hands....aside from basic things of doing good and harming no one !
Click to expand...

So let me put this to the test: if there were a Hindu yogi who had devoted himself to asceticism and non-violence, and he saw an armed soldier molesting a young child, would he be better than a Christian who shot the soldier to stop the molester?
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Suicide is seriously discouraged in Hinduism.

Wives of kings are under no pressure to die after their husbands. Examples are there in itihas (Ramayana, Mahabharatha) all over.

I don't know the exact reasons for why its allowed (by choice) for kshatriya females so I have to find that out.
Click to expand...

Suicide is discouraged yet hinduism ''allows'' for Sati. It naturally follows from this that it thinks there are heavy benefits to it that outweigh suicide being ''seriously discouraged''. This is why the distinction between forced and choice seems theoretical to me since it's obviously encouraged by not having the prohibition against suicide apply in this case.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
So let me put this to the test: if there were a Hindu yogi who had devoted himself to asceticism and non-violence, and he saw an armed soldier molesting a young child, would he be better than a Christian who shot the soldier to stop the molester?
Click to expand...

He wont be ! because he saw something wrong and he let it happen ..... it is good as harming the person and the christian will be rewarded if rest of the life is as good !
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Sati was outlawed by the British after several failed attempts by the Mughals to do so. If it wasn't part of Hindu culture, then why were Hindus so reluctant to give it up? This is like me claiming that jihad was a western concept adopted from the Crusaders and the barbarians before them that inspired it in 1000BC.
Click to expand...

Never denied Sati wasn't there in Hindu culture. Not in any of the posts here.

1. Sati is there in texts.
2. Forced sati which was happening is not there. Communities once they start doing something don't give up and it was a cultural thing for some of the communities.
3. British banned it.

When leg side flick asked about what aspects were plagiarized by Hinduism, you said Sati. I asked why you mentioned that and my subsequent posts were regarding that.
 
IgnitedMind said:
He wont be ! because he saw something wrong and he let it happen ..... it is good as harming the person and the christian will be rewarded if rest of the life is as good !
Click to expand...

But in the previous post you said the main criteria was to do good and harm no one. By shooting a man that seems to violate that non violence principle quite conclusively.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Never denied Sati wasn't there in Hindu culture. Not in any of the posts here.

1. Sati is there in texts.
2. Forced sati which was happening is not there. Communities once they start doing something don't give up and it was a cultural thing for some of the communities.
3. British banned it.

When leg side flick asked about what aspects were plagiarized by Hinduism, you said Sati. I asked why you mentioned that and my subsequent posts were regarding that.
Click to expand...


Sati was never a tradition in the teachings. The word Sati cannot be found in any scriptures like Mahabharatha to denote the death at funeral pyre. The act was called Anumarana and it was not restricted to wives of the deceased. Anyone with personal loyalty or oath with the deceased was free to die at the funeral pyre, including servants, bodyguards, relatives. There was never any restriction on the gender. Both men and women could do it IF they choose it of their own free will.
 
endymion248 said:
Suicide is discouraged yet hinduism ''allows'' for Sati. It naturally follows from this that it thinks there are heavy benefits to it that outweigh suicide being ''seriously discouraged''. This is why the distinction between forced and choice seems theoretical to me since it's obviously encouraged by not having the prohibition against suicide apply in this case.
Click to expand...

Bro....you didn't read my prev comments fully or you didn't get them.

Sati isn't allowed for all castes. Only kshatriya females (I said I have to check that part out).

There are NO HEAVY benefits to Sati outweighing anything.

Lord Rama's mothers didn't do Sati nor did many of the wives of kshatriya warriors who died in Ramayana, Mahabharatha.

For other castes, the question itself doesn't arise.

Just cos some crazy Rajputs forced widows doesn't mean its natural for all and is prescribed for all.
 
I think the sati is a dead issue. It is not mandatory by their religious texts so that should settle it.


I am more interested in the link posted by ignited mind. I dont know maybe I am misreading it but sounds like Hinduism is all about self ascension to a higher plane of though and existence and not about worshipping the creator.

If that is the case, how do you explain the concept of creator, preserver and destroyer?
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Never denied Sati wasn't there in Hindu culture. Not in any of the posts here.

1. Sati is there in texts.
2. Forced sati which was happening is not there. Communities once they start doing something don't give up and it was a cultural thing for some of the communities.
3. British banned it.

When leg side flick asked about what aspects were plagiarized by Hinduism, you said Sati. I asked why you mentioned that and my subsequent posts were regarding that.
Click to expand...

Sati was banned by the British and it was a practice which they themselves didn't follow. So unless Sati is still being practised today, then Hindus have adopted a better way (British Christian) which means ditching Sati. To then adopt this new way and claim it was always part of Hinduism is what I refer to as plagiarism. You can see examples of it even in this thread.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Bro....you didn't read my prev comments fully or you didn't get them.

Sati isn't allowed for all castes. Only kshatriya females (I said I have to check that part out).

There are NO HEAVY benefits to Sati outweighing anything.

Lord Rama's mothers didn't do Sati nor did many of the wives of kshatriya warriors who died in Ramayana, Mahabharatha.

For other castes, the question itself doesn't arise.

Just cos some crazy Rajputs forced widows doesn't mean its natural for all and is prescribed for all.
Click to expand...

If there are no benefits to it then why do the scriptures lift the prohibition on suicide for it? You seem to completely miss my point, it doesn't matter from a philosophical perspective how many people do it or from what caste. What is the justification behind allowing it when it's obvious that life is sacred in hinduism?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Just following your train of thought and trying to get a straight answer. It was your statement after all.
Click to expand...

It is a religion..it is not one life philosophy ! Obviously 'harm no one' comes with it set of rules...and fighting bad things is part of it !
 
Stewie said:
I think the sati is a dead issue. It is not mandatory by their religious texts so that should settle it.


I am more interested in the link posted by ignited mind. I dont know maybe I am misreading it but sounds like Hinduism is all about self ascension to a higher plane of though and existence and not about worshipping the creator.

If that is the case, how do you explain the concept of creator, preserver and destroyer?
Click to expand...

Basically ! Hinduism is all about karma..and attaining moksha...than believing in god..or not believing in god !
 
IgnitedMind said:
Basically ! Hinduism is all about karma..and attaining moksha...than believing in god..or not believing in god !
Click to expand...

so what about hte dieties that represent creation, preservation and destruction then? Who creates or created man? How did that come about?

I understand the concept of Karma but it does not address the questions of creation.

So it doesnt tell you what to believe in but leaves it upto you? Is that right?
 
Stewie said:
so what about hte dieties that represent creation, preservation and destruction then? Who creates or created man? How did that come about?

I understand the concept of Karma but it does not address the questions of creation.

So it doesnt tell you what to believe in but leaves it upto you? Is that right?
Click to expand...

They are just there ! I think from my understanding and what I have been taught and read..They are people...and they did great things and people 'chose' to worship them. And at various times in history they took rebirths to do good...and all of these are mythological than hard religious text books like bible or quran ! Hinduism , you can consider anything good as god..and it is believed everybody and everything has godliness in them which explains crores of gods....
 
endymion248 said:
If there are no benefits to it then why do the scriptures lift the prohibition on suicide for it? You seem to completely miss my point, it doesn't matter from a philosophical perspective how many people do it or from what caste. What is the justification behind allowing it when it's obvious that life is sacred in hinduism?
Click to expand...

Then ask why that is allowed instead of saying there is not much difference between forced and optional when I have given solid examples of why there is a difference countless times in this thread.

Now we are discussing about what's the reason its mentioned which is a valid question and I said (multiple times) I have to find that out (again multiple times).

Now if you insist, here's the thing (on a basic level):

There is a concept of wife being with husband at all times (around which its built).

At the same time, there are rulings of wife marrying the brother of King (Vaali's wife married Sugriva after his death - Vanaras were devas following Vedic rituals), wife mating with a brother for the purpose of a heir if the King can't produce it (this is allowed for prev Yugas but not now).

Cpt. Rishwat said:
Sati was banned by the British and it was a practice which they themselves didn't follow. So unless Sati is still being practised today, then Hindus have adopted a better way (British Christian) which means ditching Sati. To then adopt this new way and claim it was always part of Hinduism is what I refer to as plagiarism. You can see examples of it even in this thread.
Click to expand...

You are saying Hindus ditched Sati and call it as never being part of Hinduism.

But the Sati (as we know it - forced barbarism) is not part of Hinduism anyways. While the term Sati may or may not be in Hinduism, the Sati we know it is not.

That's why I first asked you to clarify what you meant reg this Sati issue.

But in general I get your point about discarding the bad bits (which is why I never disputed it).
 
IgnitedMind said:
They are just there ! I think from my understanding and what I have been taught and read..They are people...and they did great things and people 'chose' to worship them. And at various times in history they took rebirths to do good...and all of these are mythological than hard religious text books like bible or quran ! Hinduism , you can consider anything good as god..and it is believed everybody and everything has godliness in them which explains crores of gods....
Click to expand...

so who created us then? does Hinduism address that question?
 
endymion248 said:
If there are no benefits to it then why do the scriptures lift the prohibition on suicide for it? You seem to completely miss my point, it doesn't matter from a philosophical perspective how many people do it or from what caste. What is the justification behind allowing it when it's obvious that life is sacred in hinduism?
Click to expand...

OK...I think I worded my "benefits" comment wrongly.

Sorry about that.

I get your point now.

This is why the distinction between forced and choice seems theoretical to me since it's obviously encouraged by not having the prohibition against suicide apply in this case.
Click to expand...

It could be extra benefits or whatever but that doesn't equate to forced OR equate to reducing the gap between forced and optional.

The fact that Lord Rama's mothers didn't do it (even in the 2nd Yuga which was considere more pious than 3rd Krishna's yuga) should make it clear that females don't have to die or are under moral pressure to do it.

The exact reasons for this rule - I have to find out.
 
Stewie said:
so who created us then? does Hinduism address that question?
Click to expand...

I believe having a discussion on this long back with a friend...and we researched

Hinduism has different view points..but i believe the popular one is from brahma..and he creates us !
 
Okay moving on, I have another question.

Why did Sikhs form their own religion, and what is it in Hindu religion that caused them to reject it and form the new religion of Sikhism?
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
OK...I think I worded my "benefits" comment wrongly.

Sorry about that.

I get your point now.



It could be extra benefits or whatever but that doesn't equate to forced OR equate to reducing the gap between forced and optional.

The fact that Lord Rama's mothers didn't do it (even in the 2nd Yuga which was considere more pious than 3rd Krishna's yuga) should make it clear that females don't have to die or are under moral pressure to do it.

The exact reasons for this rule - I have to find out.
Click to expand...

Keep me briefed :P
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Okay moving on, I have another question.

Why did Sikhs form their own religion, and what is it in Hindu religion that caused them to reject it and form the new religion of Sikhism?
Click to expand...

Hinduism is a very very old religion and tons of Andh Vishwas (Superstitions) crept into it. Sikhs can correct me, Guru Nanak Dev rejected a lot of rituals and superstitions that got ingrained in the daily lives of Hindus.

Of course, there are other differences too like Caste System etc.
 
Lurker_Ind said:
Hinduism is a very very old religion and tons of Andh Vishwas (Superstitions) crept into it. Sikhs can correct me, Guru Nanak Dev rejected a lot of rituals and superstitions that got ingrained in the daily lives of Hindus.

Of course, there are other differences too like Caste System etc.
Click to expand...

So which religion is correct, the old version or the one that superceded it as according to Guru Nanak? Or perhaps Sikhism was born for a limited time only and now is ready to be reabsorbed into Hinduism? I have heard that version of history from Hindutva sites.
 
It is unrealistic to follow a religious book written thousands of years back.
World and lifestyles changed with time.
Hindu religion had many bad practices; some were removed over time like sati etc.
Films like PK and God tusi great ho portraits real problems of my religion.
But they also educate people as well. Hindu religion allows changes.
Hopefully one day we will make our religion better
 
junaid.ahmed said:
shaheed in hinduism?? can someone plz explain this

10-15 years ago this wasnt even in their dictionaries & now its common in hiduism
Click to expand...
It's not shaheed,called balidaan, if you are referring to media, then they are what they are.
 
loves_cricket said:
It is unrealistic to follow a religious book written thousands of years back.
World and lifestyles changed with time.
Hindu religion had many bad practices; some were removed over time like sati etc.
Films like PK and God tusi great ho portraits real problems of my religion.
But they also educate people as well. Hindu religion allows changes.
Hopefully one day we will make our religion better
Click to expand...

That would explain why Buddhism and Sikh religion rose out of Hinduism in order to separate themselves from the worst practices that had become enshrined in the Hindu religion. Buddhism is probably now one of the most popular religions in the west, whereas Sikh religion seems centred round just Punjab area of India.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Okay moving on, I have another question.

Why did Sikhs form their own religion, and what is it in Hindu religion that caused them to reject it and form the new religion of Sikhism?
Click to expand...

Just saw this thread again....

Trust you are now clear that Hinduism was not cheating and that no plagiarism was involved....
 
leg-side-flick said:
Just saw this thread again....

Trust you are now clear that Hinduism was not cheating and that no plagiarism was involved....
Click to expand...

No, I think Hindus just incorporate new ideas and call them Hinduism. It's a bit like adopting a foreign name like Bobby Deol, or Jimmy Vadhera.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
No, I think Hindus just incorporate new ideas and call them Hinduism. It's a bit like adopting a foreign name like Bobby Deol, or Jimmy Vadhera.
Click to expand...

You quoted earlier an example of Sati which was proved to you that it's not part of religious texts and that Raja Ram Mohan Roy campaigned for abolishing it, essentially something which was bad and not part of religion was kicked out....

Is there any other example that you can think of, where Hindus claimed something which was not theirs, I am sure you have many examples, considering you are continuously holding the onto the same argument...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
  • Poll Poll
Are the followers of Hindutva, the biggest threat to Hinduism?
Replies
39
Views
974
Rajdeep
R
Bhaijaan
Sanatani Dialogues Part 4: Future tourist potential of pilgrimages to Bharat, being the birthplace of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism
Replies
16
Views
556
guard
G
Suleiman
Let’s revitalize good relations between Hindus and Muslims like pre colonial times [Goodwill Thread]
Replies
9
Views
279
DeadlyVenom
D
D
10 Downing Street apologies to Hindus after meat and alcohol served at Diwali event
Replies
11
Views
453
Technics 1210
Technics 1210
Devadwal
Reality check for Indian citizens - Can we learn?
Replies
29
Views
696
JaDed
JaDed
Back
Top