ajit12

This is typical of hinduism rather all sects in India.Some wise seer be it Budhdha ,Mahavir,Sahjananda,Rajneesh the list is endless;comes and tries to reintroduce people to the correct path and lo!! what happens?His followers make god out of him.Same thing happened to Ram & Krisna. God can set things right by sitting in his heaven.He does not have to take human form,do work of a human and be limited by human frailities.We have to understand that AHAM BRAMHASMI i.e. I am him .Then the concept of any human being being special god loses it's charm.If you go through Vachnaamrita you find things like eat veg. food etc. this is what god is supposed to do?So much emphasis is given to Shri Sahajanand's meeting with British governer.It does not sound like God. My objection is not to Swami Narayan sect,but to our stupid habit of making God out of any great human beings,Be it Sahajanand or Saibaba.

This confusion started with puranic verses glorifying the cow.The cow is supposed to contain 33 deities [not 33 million] in her stomach.The were 8 vasus,8 dishadevs etc.Unfortunately I do not have the references handy as I am travelling.These 33 deities together as a class are known as "koti" which in Marathi[indian regional language] also means crores [one crore is 10 million.] Hence someone translating the puranic verses translated 33 "koti" as 33 crores i.e.330 million sometime in 1904 or there abouts.This myth came from Marathi to English and other languages and has persisted ever since.I will post the relevent refernces when I am back from my travels

Every human soul the moment it is born is asking the question "KOHUM,KOHUM???" this means "who am I? During intensive meditation & sadhana he discovers the answer which then is recited with his every breath.The answer is "SOHUM,SOHUM" or"AHAM BRAMHASMI" which means "I am him" or "I am bramha" If you discover & understand this your sadhana & the cycle of births & deaths is over .This is mukti,Moksha.Rather than asking the meaning of self try and discover the same by asking the above question.The discovery is sheer, total & perpetual bliss.

Where do you get such farfetched idea that 96 % of vedas are lost ?Vedas are essentially sruties i.e. recited .If 96% of vedas is lost then we are not following vedic religion .What religion do we belong to? Vedas are not meant for elevation of heavenly planets nor there is any science in vedas.No society can escape the bonds of time in which it lives.To put a PC on your table 400 years of scientific advancement is necessary.A few slokas about Viman or arrows carrying warheads does not mean science. Within the confines of time we were great in atronomy,Mathematics[although not trignometry,our fourfathers did not know the value of 'pi'],Bharat's Natyashastra,Ayurveda[again it did not know about germs & bacteria.],Kaamsutra,Metalworking,Different schools of philosophy,building of forts & temples,meditation,cloth making & dyeing etc. We were much ahead of other societies. This list is very long but all this was suitable for the time during which this society existed.They did not cross the boundaries of time and invent nuclear bomb.

Jay 74, Get your facts right.Shiva as such, or as Mahadeva, is not alluded to in proper Vedas. The Rigveda, however, frequently mentions a brown complexioned sun-like brilliant and gold-like glowing animal-skin-wearing entity by the name of Rudra, or Ishan, who, as per the Rigvedic description, is synonymous of a violent non-Aryan jungle or tribal god capable of subduing, by his mighty arrows, even the most wild of animals. He did not hesitate even to kill human beings and sought delight in such destruction. Hence, the Rigveda is somewhat critical of his wildness and invokes him for not destroying his devotees, their ancestors, offspring, relatives and horses. It is only gradually and somewhat in simultaneity that the Rigveda softens and sophisticates him into a civil god of Aryan kind and includes him into the Vedic .. The later Vedic literature identifies in Rudra the proto form of the subsequent Shiva. When Puranas perceived the formless God manifest in His triple function, which He performed as the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer, both initially and finally, as well as always, they chose Shiva to represent one of these functional aspects of Him and elevated him to the status of the Great Trinity.

Celibecy was never a part of Vedic religion.In fact Vedas,Mahabharat & puranas are very explicit & matter of fact about sex matters.Sex worship was an essential part of Tantric cult.Ours is the only society which produced Khajuraho,Konark & Vatsyana's Kaamsutra. Sex is also cosidered to be one of the four Purusharth,they are Dharm[Religion & worship through rituals],Arth[earning ,multiplying & enjoying money],Kaam[enjoyment of sex & procreation] & moksha[release of atma or salvation]A householder is required to make his wife a 50% partner in the first three. Celibacy and all sorts of stupid rules associated with it are a part borrowed from Budhism & Jainism.These frowned upon sex or even seeing the opposite sex by the Shraman or Sanyasi Bhikkus.This somehow made it's way in a distorted form in hinduism. Tantric rituals & sex worship had reached extreme proportions in using sex for worship.It was just horrifying and was spreading despite efforts to control it.Celibacy became the other extreme cosidering sex to be something horrible.Excesses on both sides are to be avoided.

1]'You must realize that Ram and Sita are both god, if Ram doubted Sita's safety, he would not have sent her, but she is god, nobody is going to be able to do anything' Ravan did kidnap Sita despite your argument & the whole trouble started from there.Why did our God allow this?If he did allow this to kill Ravana then why should Sita suffer for lofty aims of God Ram. 2]'Ram was not forsaking his wife, the people of the kingdom were doubting her, Ram fully trusted Sita.' To my simple mind dumping one's wife through a third person i.e. Laxman in a forest constitutes forsaking her. If you have any other definition I am at a loss to understand it.Ram never even informed Sita that he was going to dump her,like he left the unpleasant job to Laxman who revered Sita like a mother.People of kingdom were doubting her so he dumped her.My god ,don't you realise what an example this is going to give to the future generations. 3] If people of his kingdom so idolised Ram they would accepted that Sita is pure.One Dhobi or rather maybe a small group of people were gossiping unnecessarily and doubting Ram & Sita ,the purest souls or Bhagwan .What did Ram do? He succumbed to such malicious people. 4] A society which does not value a woman's sacrifice and dignity needs to be changed by the God that Ram was.Can you please enlighten me about the deeper lesson being taught.I am not doubting Ram,We should analyse their conduct say if something was wrong with their conduct.Gods can also be wrong.[Example Indra's seduction of Ahilya]

There was no idol worship in vedic religion & hinduism survived.The basis of idol worship is twofold 1] It is an idea borrowed from mahayana school of Budhism which laid emphasis on worship of Budha statues,stupas containing relics etc.These practices are apperent in Budhist temples all over the world. 2]Another reason was Hinduism adopted & took over places of worship of nonaryans ,shaktas etc.Deities such as Shiv,Shakti,Ganesh were added to hindu list of Gods.We also took over the centers of worship of these gods which were essentially temples & idols.over years this evolved into deep & elaborate rituals with beutiful temples. There is nothing wrong with idol worship .It has always been way of worship in all multigod religions such as ancient Egypt,Babylon,Rome & greeks.We do not have justify this by giving convoluted arguments of deep thinking of our forefathers.Why not just say this was one of the several ways in which Hinduism evolved & these ways were all welcome in our religion.

The basic point which everyone here is ignoring is as follows. 1] If any woman gets kidnapped due to no fault of her's and has to spend some time in captivity till such time she is rescued,the society as a whole should accept her into it's fold. 2]As bhagwan & a very popular king it is the duty of Ram to lay correct principles for the society,that is do not forsake your wife or any other lady if she is kidnapped like this.On the contrary he ended up telling the society you are right to doubt my wife so I am abondoning her,Agnidiwya or no agnidiwya.Generations to come please follow my example. 3] What about his duty towards a wife who followed him to Vanwasa ,went through kidnapping & captivity ,performed Agnidiwya for his sake?it would have been his moral & spiritual duty[One's duty during Grihastaashram] to abondon kingdom,make Bharat[who had already ruled very well for 14 years] or Laxman the king & for once show better values by following Sita into their second Vanwasa. Gods are supposed to make better human beings of us by setting more humane and kind examples.

The very first sloka of Mahabharata starts thus'This is Itihaas called JAY'.Kautilya writing in Arthashastra in 3rd century BC. writes' Bharata which is an extended version of an Itihaas called JAY.'Thre are a few more proofs which will be taken up later.

If you read Walmiki Ramayan[not Tulsi or any of the others] it is astounding.When Sita was released from Asokwana & brought to Ram ,Ram's Speech is typical of attitude towards women in those times. Lord Ram says to Sita 'I have fought this war to remove the blemish on my Ishwaqu Wansh that my wife was stolen by Ravana.This war was not fought for you.You who has stayed with Ravana for more than six months how can I trust that you are pure.In fact there is no way that Ravana would have left you unmolested.I do not wish to co-habit with you .Please leave my house .You are free to marry or stay otherwise with Laxaman,BHarat,Sugriva or Bibhishan.I really do not care one way or other.' On hearing these harsh words Sita cried,there and then she asked Laxmana to prepare for her agnidiwya[test by fire].This was done because of Ram's horrible beheviour. I really wonder who was the gentleman,Ravan who did not touch her or Ram who behaved in this fashion.A woman who is raped also due to circumstances beyond her control is pure this is what we should be teaching our furure generations. Ram continued the same after going to Ayodhya.He discarded a pregnant woman because the Dhobi said something.The argument given is that King has to have pure image,but then he could have handed over the kingdom to Laxman or Bharat who were equally good and should have gone to the forest with Sita. The major reason is the belief our society had at that time that a woman gets twin children if she has slept with two men [ Refer Charak samhita & nakul and Sahdeva in Mahabharat who were twins due Madri sleeping with Ashwinikumars who were two.] Sita was in advanced stage of pregancy where it was clear she was carrying twins.Thefore Dhobi and Ram had every doubt bout her fidelity. The society was like that at that time so I do not blame Ram or Dhobi for what they did, but people justifying this without reading Walmiki Ramayana are to be blamed.

Dear Guest, what exactly in my post you found to be anti dharma.Iam giving the background to the glorious struggle of more than a thousand years put up by the Hindus.it is also necessary to ensure that we look at our mistakes critically and in an objective way,so that we do not become slaves again through the same mistakes. I am the only one who has pointed out that despite a number of defeats it is we hindus who were victorius and not defeated.What is important is that we do not lose our victory Your irrational anger is more Tamoguni than my post.Despite Gita saying 'Krodhat bahvti snmoha etc.'

I have never come across a more inhuman argument than this.With this kind of view, people will continue to convert to other religions & we will just talk about hinduism.These are views of a man who has not experienced hunger, not understood that religion & god mean compassion and love for others who are in trouble. All vedic & hindu scriptures talk continously about Annadaan[donating food],Vastradaan [donating clothes].There are several rejoinders to a householder not to eat if any one is hungry.In anushasan parva of Mahabharta it is enjoined to the king that if people are hungry then he and everyone else in his kingdom will go to hell. Even the karma theory talks only about good deeds in this life giving you salvation.Good deeds again are looking after the sick,feeding the poor etc. People like you do not deserve salvation & will never be pardoned by krishna. Bhakti philosophy even talks about not letting even a dog go hungry. May lord Shrikrishna give you better Budhi to realise that seva is godliness.

Guest 2, I am not antiShankara ,in fact I am always amazed by his towering intellect.When I am reading his Shakarbhashya I am just overwhelmed by his arguments.His mastery over the rhetoric is astounding.Also when I read Pantanjali yogsutra with commentery by Vedvysa and critic by Shankara I understood the sutras for the first time as sutras by themselves are very cryptic. However I do not look at history as for anyone or anti any one .I try to study history in an impartial way.Even greats made mistakes at times or we may not understand the resoning behind their actions.Regarding supports for my arguments I will post list of references soon.

There is no problem to speak of demons or evil beings who perhaps operate just under the surface of our world.The problem is when you call them Asuras.The vedic or puranic term for such beings is Rakshash or Pishach and not Asuras.I was pointing out this inaccuracy.