Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

[Guest guest]

 

You are wrong. The Upanishads were opposed to Vedic teachings and many were athiestic philosophy. The Gita is an Upanishad and os not Vedic as people think it is. Brahmins obsorbed it and made it Vedic.

 

 

Why did people allow Brahmins to absorb it and make it Vedic? It doesn't make sense. If they opposed the vedas, how could they let it go to the Brahmins so easily. Also if it was oposed to Vedic teachings how can you make it Vedic? Upanishads don't seem atheistic and certainly most of the Acharya's in their commentaries don't view them as atheistic, whereas they view Jainism and Buddhism as atheistic. Both Jainism and Buddhism are opposed to Vedic teachings and to this day they are not seen as Vedic. The Upanishads seems like an evolution of the vedic religion which is what I consider Hinduism today is.

 

 

Also, you are wrong because when Muslims first came to India, everyone in India began calling themsevles Hindus- that inlcuded many Buddhists and Jains.

 

 

Where is the proof of this? Also you are wrong it was the Persian Zorastrians before Islam existed that contributed to the name Hindu. The muslims came later and used the same term. Buddhist and Jains may have classified themselves as Hindu to distinguish themselves from the muslims and also for political reasons. During Emperor Asoka's time Buddhism was seen as different from what we call "Hinduism". They have seperate scriptures that clearly sets them apart from "Hindus".

 

 

Also, all of the Hindu panths that were monotheistic and still worshipped Hindu Gods out right rejected the Vedas. So are they not considered Hindu?

 

 

What is the name of these paths? Are they Vaishnava, Shaivite, etc? Whay scriptures are they based on? I find that while many paths have little to do directly with the Vedas, they all claim descent from the vedas and praise the Vedas. Many of the post-vedic "Hindu" scriptures praise the Vedas.

 

 

You have to remember India has always been a country with many many panths and Gurus and spiritual Paths. There is no such religion called Hinduism in reality. It was given as a gift to the Brahmins by the British.

 

 

Given to the Brahmins or everyone? I just wonder, going by your rationale is the Mahabharata, Puranas, Ramayana, Vedic or not? And what society is presented to us in their stories? Looks like a Vedic society to me.

 

 

I am not saying we should not call ourselves Hindu-but within Hinduism are many, many sects and not all of them follow the Vedas.

 

 

Hinduism may consist of many sects but the religions of Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism look clearly distinct from it. They have distanced themselves from "the Hindus". The one sect that is not always considered Hindu is Tantra, yet some still see it as Hindu.

[Guest guest]

 

Why did people allow Brahmins to absorb it and make it Vedic? It doesn't make sense. If they opposed the vedas, how could they let it go to the Brahmins so easily. Also if it was oposed to Vedic teachings how can you make it Vedic? Upanishads don't seem atheistic and certainly most of the Acharya's in their commentaries don't view them as atheistic, whereas they view Jainism and Buddhism as atheistic. Both Jainism and Buddhism are opposed to Vedic teachings and to this day they are not seen as Vedic. The Upanishads seems like an evolution of the vedic religion which is what I consider Hinduism today is.

 

 

 

Where is the proof of this? Also you are wrong it was the Persian Zorastrians before Islam existed that contributed to the name Hindu. The muslims came later and used the same term. Buddhist and Jains may have classified themselves as Hindu to distinguish themselves from the muslims and

 

also for political reasons. During Emperor Asoka's time Buddhism was seen as different from what we call "Hinduism". They have seperate scriptures that clearly sets them apart from "Hindus".

 

 

 

What is the name of these paths? Are they Vaishnava, Shaivite, etc? Whay scriptures are they based on? I find that while many paths have little to do directly with the Vedas, they all claim descent from the vedas and praise the Vedas. Many of the post-vedic "Hindu" scriptures praise the Vedas.

 

 

 

Given to the Brahmins or everyone? I just wonder, going by your rationale is the Mahabharata, Puranas, Ramayana, Vedic or not? And what society is presented to us in their stories? Looks like a Vedic society to me.

 

 

 

Hinduism may consist of many sects but the religions of Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism look clearly distinct from it. They have distanced themselves from "the Hindus". The one sect that is not always considered Hindu is Tantra, yet some still see it as Hindu.

 

 

Number 2,

 

You ask me to give you referece for everything for proof which shows that you seem to have very little knowledge about Hindu history and religion. You seem to have failed to understand the formation of Hinduism as a religion and you insisted that everything in Hinduism is Vedic and others is not. Let me make it clear to you once again that the Upanishads are not Vedic. They were not written by Brahmins they were written by Royal bards and they out right rejected many Vedic practices. In addition, let me repeat once again write that many upanishadic teachings such as those of Kapila were athiestic. I suggest you read these yourself as it would take me too much time to come here and explain that to you. They may have incorporated certain teachings from Vedas but that does not make it Vedic. Sikhs also have words such as "Brahm" in the GGS but that does not make it Vedic.

 

There were many schools of thought prior to the Gupta era when Brahmins gained power. Like I said India has always been a place with many different traditions and religions in which you also failed to research.

 

Ibn Kurdhaba, an Arab who described in his writings to India that at his time there existed some 43 different religions. So are you saying that all of these people were all following the Vedic teachings? You have not only got to be kidding me with your Brahminical non-nense.

 

Another example I would give you since you want examples so much is:

 

Ashoka describes:

 

Asokan inscriptions also contain the term `brahmana va sramana', indicating a fundamental distinction between the Brahminists, followers of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, and the Sramanas or `nastika' heretics. Qazwini correctly describes Brahmanism as accepting a creator - God, something which the Sramanas do not do. Qazwini's "there are some who believe in neither" almost definitely refers to these nastiks (Jains, Buddhists, Atheists). Yet another traveller Abul Faaj (988 AD) mentioned the sects of India, and was completely unaware of the existance of `One Religion':

 

 

 

This means that the Brahmanas vs. Shramanas simply meant those religions that believed in a God and those that didn't, it does not mean that they were all Vedic.

 

 

I would also suggest you read the Jain and other versions of the Mahabharata in which they insists Lord Krishna and mant other characters were indeed Jain. I am not trying to put down Vedism hear but I am rather trying to show religions in India were always complex and you cannot say everything comes from the Vedas. That is modern Brahminical propoganda.

 

 

In addition, in the BC era there Sivaism, Bhagavatism (Vaishnavism), Shaktism, Vedism- these were all seperate religions. It was when Brahmins came into power after the Gupta era they organized all of the texts.

 

Your question is why did the Brahmins then except those scriptures and not Buddhist and Jain?

 

Simple enough, they were once national religions and they were opnely athiestic and also very organized. How could have the Brahmins obsorb them?

 

In addition,

 

The Bhakti movement, the Warkaris, Varkaris and Mahanubhav sects rejected Vedas while excepting other scriptures. For example, Mahanubhav, excepts Lord Krishna as their only Lord and the Holy Gita as well as the Holy Leela Charitras as their scriptures but not the Vedas. They believed in fundamental equality of all human biengs, equality of man and woman, they outright rejected caste and varna, and accepted universal brotherhood, but they remained within Hinduism.

 

In addition, Sant Dyaneshwar also criticized Vedas in many of his poems. Perhaps when I have time I can look through all my Bhakti books and post some for proof. He said the Vedas was empty. He remained Hindu.

 

So you need to rethink before you come here and make those claims.

[Guest guest]

Before I say anything I must tell you that with all your so-called

"Hindu" learning you have failed to put into practice some basic Hindu teachings such as controlling of ones anger and being judgemental. You have judged me to be brahminical, I am neither a brahmin nor on their side. And you clearly were quite angry when writing your post, but why? Because I don't share your opinions? You need to learn that not everyone in the world is going to believe you, no matter what you say.

 

 

Like I said India has always been a place with many different traditions and religions in which you also failed to research.

 

 

Actually I knew that, it's quite common knowledge. So what you think are the oldest religions in India? Shaivism, Vedism or Jainism? And who influenced what?

 

 

Let me make it clear to you once again that the Upanishads are not Vedic. They were not written by Brahmins they were written by Royal bards and they out right rejected many Vedic practices. In addition, let me repeat once again write that many upanishadic teachings such as those of Kapila were athiestic.

 

 

Upanishads are not Vedic? but why are they connected with the four Vedas? They form the end portions of the Vedas. I guess a "Hindu" monk like Swami Vivekananda must have been wrong then? According to the Upanishads themselves they are written by sages of all castes.

 

 

You have not only got to be kidding me with your Brahminical non-nense.

 

 

Be careful with who you call a Brahmin. I'm nothing of the sort and don't support their propaganda. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

 

 

Qazwini correctly describes Brahmanism as accepting a creator - God, something which the Sramanas do not do. Qazwini's "there are some who believe in neither" almost definitely refers to these nastiks (Jains, Buddhists, Atheists). Yet another traveller Abul Faaj (988 AD) mentioned the sects of India, and was completely unaware of the existance of `One Religion':

 

 

Strange you quote from a few arab sources. Since when have we been able to trust Arabs talking about Indian history? They even took some Mathematical ideas from India and went around the world claiming it to be their discovery.

 

 

I would also suggest you read the Jain and other versions of the Mahabharata in which they insists Lord Krishna and mant other characters were indeed Jain.

 

 

Jain version of Mahabharata? Lord Krishna was a Jain? I find that hard to believe. I suppose a Jain version would have a Jain bias and let's be honest the Jain version is not exactly the version people know about is it? You accept the Gita as being non-vedic but there is a contradiction of Lord Krishna telling Arjuna to fight in the Kurukshetra war and the Jain teachings of absolute non-violence. The Mahabharata was attributed to Sage Vyasa who as most of us know was not a Brahmin and whose mother was a lower-caste fisherwoman. Yet, he is regarded as one of the greatest sages.

 

 

They believed in fundamental equality of all human biengs, equality of man and woman, they outright rejected caste and varna, and accepted universal brotherhood, but they remained within Hinduism.

 

 

There is another sect that believes in all those things you mentioned. They are called Arya Samaj and they believe only in the Vedas. It must seem strange to you that a sect can be based solely on the Vedas and believe in those values you mentioned.

 

 

So you need to rethink before you come here and make those claims.

 

Like I said, you need to learn to remain calm, control your anger and accept that not everyone believes you.

[Guest guest]

 

Before I say anything I must tell you that with all your so-called

"Hindu" learning you have failed to put into practice some basic Hindu teachings such as controlling of ones anger and being judgemental. You have judged me to be brahminical, I am neither a brahmin nor on their side. And you clearly were quite angry when writing your post, but why? Because I don't share your opinions? You need to learn that not everyone in the world is going to believe you, no matter what you say.

 

 

 

Actually I knew that, it's quite common knowledge. So what you think are the oldest religions in India? Shaivism, Vedism or Jainism? And who influenced what?

 

 

 

Upanishads are not Vedic? but why are they connected with the four Vedas? They form the end portions of the Vedas. I guess a "Hindu" monk like Swami Vivekananda must have been wrong then? According to the Upanishads themselves they are written by sages of all castes.

 

 

 

Be careful with who you call a Brahmin. I'm nothing of the sort and don't support their propaganda. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

 

 

 

Strange you quote from a few arab sources. Since when have we been able to trust Arabs talking about Indian history? They even took some Mathematical ideas from India and went around the world claiming it to be their discovery.

 

 

 

Jain version of Mahabharata? Lord Krishna was a Jain? I find that hard to believe. I suppose a Jain version would have a Jain bias and let's be honest the Jain version is not exactly the version people know about is it? You accept the Gita as being non-vedic but there is a contradiction of Lord Krishna telling Arjuna to fight in the Kurukshetra war and the Jain teachings of absolute non-violence. The Mahabharata was attributed to Sage Vyasa who as most of us know was not a Brahmin and whose mother was a lower-caste fisherwoman. Yet, he is regarded as one of the greatest sages.

 

 

 

There is another sect that believes in all those things you mentioned. They are called Arya Samaj and they believe only in the Vedas. It must seem strange to you that a sect can be based solely on the Vedas and believe in those values you mentioned.

 

 

 

Like I said, you need to learn to remain calm, control your anger and accept that not everyone believes you.

 

 

I do apologize if I came off as rude of angry. I do respect everyones belief. However, I still dis agree with you. You say Jains are bias, but someone can say the samething about Vedics as well. They were biased in their view as well.

 

You also say not to trust Arab sources which you may be correct but I will also not trust Brahminical sources as well because Brahmins have done a whole lot of lying as well. They make the most ellaborate claims such as the whole world began in India and all civilization comes from Vedas as well as many other things that I do not want to repeat as they are too embarrasing for me as a Hindu.

 

What does Vedic mean? All things that orignate from the Vedas. So my whole point is, India is filled with many different sects and many different books and for people to say it all came from the "Vedas" is not proven. A lot of the texts are contradicting and some are alligned against each other and for Hindus to say it's all Vedic are just following an age old Brahminical superiority custom, which is basically saying all civilization in India comes from them. I do not believe this to be true and neither does many others. You can have your view.

 

Please do not think I am disrespecting the Vedas or saying they are false. I am rather saying not everything within Hinduism as we know it today comes from the Vedas. I personally do not follow the Vedas, I follow the Gita and that is Lord Krishna's word. Everything I need for a spiritual life is contained within Gita and I need not turn to anything else for so called "higher knowledge". It comes directly from the Lord and he specifically made references to the Vedas and other scriptures preaching to drop all else and take refuge in his words.

 

As for the Bhakti Panths, yes you are correct. The Arya Samaji's did preach directly for the Vedas.However, my intention for mentioning the other sects was to tell you that they rejected the Vedas but praised other scriptures and they remained Hindu. My whole point was that defining Hinduism as Vedic cannot be proved to be true. Hinduism is just seen as Vedic because of the dominance of the Brahmin class. There is nothing wrong if you want to hold your view but you should also know that not everyon holds your view either.

 

God Bless

[Guest guest]

Well now it looks like we're getting somewhere.

 

 

However, I still dis agree with you. You say Jains are bias, but someone can say the samething about Vedics as well. They were biased in their view as well.

 

 

In my experience Jains do try to distance themselves from Hinduism by focusing on the differences rather than the similarities. I've also come across some who say that without them there would be no Buddhism, which I don't agree with since Buddha also had differences with the Jains. And yes, Vedics can be bias too. With Jains and Buddhist they've got their traditions which is well defined, I think because Hinduism is so vast it's much harder to define it.

 

 

You also say not to trust Arab sources which you may be correct but I will also not trust Brahminical sources as well because Brahmins have done a whole lot of lying as well. They make the most ellaborate claims such as the whole world began in India and all civilization comes from Vedas as well as many other things that I do not want to repeat as they are too embarrasing for me as a Hindu.

 

 

Yes I agree, they do make some ridiculous claims especially that everything began in India and have their own ideas of being superior. It's a pity they are not living up to the high ideal they are supposed to.

 

 

What does Vedic mean? All things that orignate from the Vedas. So my whole point is, India is filled with many different sects and many different books and for people to say it all came from the "Vedas" is not proven. A lot of the texts are contradicting and some are alligned against each other and for Hindus to say it's all Vedic are just following an age old Brahminical superiority custom, which is basically saying all civilization in India comes from them. I do not believe this to be true and neither does many others. You can have your view.

 

 

Vedic means part of the Vedic tradition. The Vedic tradition consist of the sruti and smriti scriptures. In the case of the Upanishads they are directly connected with the 4 Vedas being the end portion and accepted as sruti. I would also argue that they are the most popular and influential portion of the Vedas, with most of the rituals of the Samhitas and brahmanas being outdated, forgotten and just practiced by some Brahmins. The Upanishads go against rituals as it is represents an evolution of the Vedic religion from the outward ritual to the inner spirituality which is far more relevant today. Once you follow a path of spirituality you no longer need rituals.

 

 

Please do not think I am disrespecting the Vedas or saying they are false. I am rather saying not everything within Hinduism as we know it today comes from the Vedas. I personally do not follow the Vedas, I follow the Gita and that is Lord Krishna's word. Everything I need for a spiritual life is contained within Gita and I need not turn to anything else for so called "higher knowledge".

 

 

The Vedas are respected because they are thought to be the origin of Hinduism, without the Vedas Hinduism wouldn't have developed further because unlike other religions Hinduism is a continuous tradition which is the main reason it has not died out unlike other ancient religions. Hardly any Hindu today follows the Vedas directly. The Gita is probably the most popular scripture. Most Hindus follow a school of Vedanta and a guru.

Lord Krishna also said what he is teaching is the essence of the Vedas and his teachings are purely Yogic and Vedantic.

 

 

My whole point was that defining Hinduism as Vedic cannot be proved to be true. Hinduism is just seen as Vedic because of the dominance of the Brahmin class. There is nothing wrong if you want to hold your view but you should also know that not everyon holds your view either.

 

 

I understand what you're getting at. But I think in the scriptures that we know as "Hindu scriptures" there does seem to be a unity when it comes to the Vedas. Though they criticise they all seem to hold the Vedas in high regard, they all look back to the Vedas. There is controversy whether Tantra is part of Hinduism or not since they praise the Agamas and not the Vedas, yet they generally are accepted as Hindus.

[sreeram]

Hindu is not a religion. It is a way life that followed by the people who lived in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">valley</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Indus</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> ie Sindhu river. Sikh budha and jains are branches of these people and they can be considered as hindus. No need to go deep into what Swami Vivekanda told. He explained the same with some examples to understand to common people.

[Guest guest]

 

Sikh budha and jains are branches of these people and they can be considered as hindus.

 

Sikhs and Jains are indeed Indian people but of the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists I know, none of them want to be considered as Hindus and they have the right to distinguish themselves from Hinduism. What they don't like is when certain Hindus try to force them to call themselves Hindus, when they don't feel like Hindus and don't want to be. By doing this you are not respecting them as a faith community to exists as a religion in it's own right.

When people talk about Hinduism, we know what they are talking about and what is regarded as Hindu. No need to make something so simple into something so difficult. We know what makes Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as seperate religions. Sure, we have similarities but also have dofferences.

[Guest guest]

 

Sikhs and Jains are indeed Indian people but of the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists I know, none of them want to be considered as Hindus and they have the right to distinguish themselves from Hinduism. What they don't like is when certain Hindus try to force them to call themselves Hindus, when they don't feel like Hindus and don't want to be. By doing this you are not respecting them as a faith community to exists as a religion in it's own right.

When people talk about Hinduism, we know what they are talking about and what is regarded as Hindu. No need to make something so simple into something so difficult. We know what makes Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as seperate religions. Sure, we have similarities but also have dofferences.

 

 

Actually no, when we talk about Hinduism we do not know what we are talking about. There are so many sects within Hinduism and very different from each other. Hinduism is nothing but a series of religions from ancient times clumped into one. Jains and Buddhist are not considered Hindu because they are Athiestic philosophies and Sikhism is a recent religion, when Sikhs formed the Khalsa Panth they asked for a seperate religion and Hindus refused to recognize them as a seperate religion eventually leading the two groups to have fueds with one another.

 

The same can be said about sects within Hinduism as well. They all can be considered seperate relgions, they just haven't asked for it on paper.

[riih.qarojamahoamaan]

Please Excuse My Ignorance And Explain:

What Kinds Of Tilaka Are There In India?

Are There Only Vaisnava Tilakas And Shaiva Tilakas, Or Are There Buddhist And Jaina And Sikh Tilakas As Well?

Can You Please Describe The Exact Shape, Colour And Material Of Each Kind Of Tilaka?

Thank You.

Also, Please Supply Some Statistics: What Percentage Of Indians Follow Each Religion.

[Guest guest]

 

Actually no, when we talk about Hinduism we do not know what we are talking about.

 

 

Maybe you don't, but I think I know what is meant by Hinduism and the sects or "religions" that are associated with it. I don't think it's so difficult even if these sects vary. Most Hindu societies across the world recognise what is known as Hinduism.

 

 

Hinduism is nothing but a series of religions from ancient times clumped into one.

 

 

So which is the oldest and which is the newest? And if so are all the sects of Hinduism right in their claim of being the worlds oldest religion? As some sects are newer and others older. Are Vaishnavas older than Shaivites or vice-versa?

 

 

Sikhism is a recent religion, when Sikhs formed the Khalsa Panth they asked for a seperate religion and Hindus refused to recognize them as a seperate religion eventually leading the two groups to have fueds with one another.

 

 

You can see why can't you. The fact that they wanted to be 'different' shows that even they knew what Hinduism was, so as to distinguish themselves from it. And 'Hindus' refused...that shows that the Hindus knew who they were.

 

 

The same can be said about sects within Hinduism as well. They all can be considered seperate relgions, they just haven't asked for it on paper.

 

Can they? So are the different sects of Christianity seperate religions as they have different beliefs, rituals, etc? What is known as Hinduism shares common beliefs even through different traditions and schools of thought may disagree on interpretations.

[Guest guest]

 

Maybe you don't, but I think I know what is meant by Hinduism and the sects or "religions" that are associated with it. I don't think it's so difficult even if these sects vary. Most Hindu societies across the world recognise what is known as Hinduism.

 

 

 

So which is the oldest and which is the newest? And if so are all the sects of Hinduism right in their claim of being the worlds oldest religion? As some sects are newer and others older. Are Vaishnavas older than Shaivites or vice-versa?

 

 

 

You can see why can't you. The fact that they wanted to be 'different' shows that even they knew what Hinduism was, so as to distinguish themselves from it. And 'Hindus' refused...that shows that the Hindus knew who they were.

 

 

 

Can they? So are the different sects of Christianity seperate religions as they have different beliefs, rituals, etc? What is known as Hinduism shares common beliefs even through different traditions and schools of thought may disagree on interpretations.

 

I really don't know how to better explain to someone who hasn't studied variations of Hinduism or Hindu history. I will give my last attempt for the sake of people here who are confused as well. Other then that I would strongly ask you to please disect what is Hinduism, study it inside out and then please speak. You dont have to agree with me or anyone but at least you will have a better understanding of what I am talking about.

 

So here are some history lessons for you. In case you didn't know there is no such thing as Hinduism. The word Hindu was bieng used to people of Indian decent when Muslims entered India.It was further used under British rule. It was under British rule that Hinduism began forming as a so called "ogrniazed religion" with the help of the Brahmins who further perpuated the idea of a unified Hindu religion. The people of India began calling themselves Hindu. This meant millions of people. When Sikhism arose, the word Hindu was already bieng used. The Sikh Gurus stated many times that they were niether Sikh noe Hindu but they were servants of God. This simply meant that they did not believe in labels.

 

In 1947, when Hinduism was officially coined as a religion, Sikhs wanted a seperate religion on paper which was refused.

 

The only reason why Buddhists and Jains are not considered Hindu is because when Westerners began studying Indian religions, they were a minority as well as Athiestic. Thus they got labeled as Non-Vedic religions.

 

Shivaism is the oldest spiritual Path. Vedism was a minor religion in India before the AD. The Bhagavatas (Vaishnavas) are not as old as Shivaism. There practices are supposed to have dated back to 800-600 BC during the Upanishadic era. They rejected Brahminism, Vedic rituals and fire sacrifices and were strictly monotheistic worshipping only Krishna.

 

There has existed many religions, sects, and traditions in India.

 

Agter the Gupta era Brahmins gained complete power. They introduced the Manu Smirti, a strict Brahminical Law Code on the entire society. This is when they began Brahminizing all of the religions.

 

The Bhakti religions have their own books, they rejected the Vedas but followed The Gita or other text and worshipped only One God- Krishna, Durga, Rama, etc..

 

They have their own Mandirs, their practices are very close to Sikhism. They just never asked for a seperate religion on paper because they were not political movements like Sikhism was.

 

So concluding, Hinduism is many ancient religions under one big Branch through Brahmin power.

 

Also, just in case you didn't know, what many people think Hinduism is because they are told so by people like YOU who give people the wrong idea by living in a closed box and presenting Hinduism according to your own ideas. Not everyone practices Hinduism the way you do and you need to respect that. Hinduism is highly misrepresented because of upper caste Hindus who come here and present it according to the Brahminical/English view.

 

You are clumping all of these Hindus who are different religions in their own right under the way you practice it and I am sorry but that is far fetched from reality.

 

 

Hinduism is nothing but a new term. It never existed in ancient times and it still doesn't exist today when it comes to all of the religions within Hinduism. It is many religions into one big banner.

[niranjan]

 

Please Excuse My Ignorance And Explain:

What Kinds Of Tilaka Are There In India?

Are There Only Vaisnava Tilakas And Shaiva Tilakas, Or Are There Buddhist And Jaina And Sikh Tilakas As Well?

Can You Please Describe The Exact Shape, Colour And Material Of Each Kind Of Tilaka?

Thank You.

Also, Please Supply Some Statistics: What Percentage Of Indians Follow Each Religion.

 

Wearing a tilak is not at all a qualification for being a hindu. I and many of my co-hindus do not wear tilaks at all and I am sure we are Hindus.

 

The most important teaching of Hinduism is to get enlightenment or moksha or liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth. And since Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism are valid paths too for attaining enlightenment , one does not cease to be a Hindu by following these paths for attaining enlightenment.

 

Again I wish to repeat these quotes by Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Govind Singh....

 

 

Tin te sun Siri Tegh Bahadur

Dharam nibaahan bikhe Bahadur Uttar bhaniyo, dharam hum Hindu

Atipriya ko kin karen nikandu Lok parlok ubhaya sukhani

Aan napahant yahi samani Mat mileen murakh mat loi

Ise tayage pramar soi Hindu dharam rakhe jag mahin

Tumre kare bin se it nahin

- Guru Tegh Bahadur's reply to Aurangzeb's ordering him to embrace Islam.(In response, Shri Tegh Bahadur says, My religion is Hindu and how can I abandon what is so dear to me? This religion helps you in this world and that, and only a fool would abandon it. God himself is the protector of this religion and no one can destroy it.)

 

Sakal jagat main Khalsa Panth gaje

Jage dharam Hindu sakal bhand bhaje

- Guru Govind Singh

(The Khalsa sect will roar around the world. Hinduism will awaken, its enemies will flee.)

 

<!-- / message -->From these words of the gurus, let us understand the words of Swami Vivekananda in their true light.

[Guest guest]

 

So here are some history lessons for you. In case you didn't know there is no such thing as Hinduism. The word Hindu was bieng used to people of Indian decent when Muslims entered India.

 

 

No need for the history lesson I already know of most of what you say. And Hindu or 'Sindhu' was used before muslims by the Persian zorastrians to describe the people and culture living around the Indus. The word Indus came from the Greeks. Hindu may have been used by muslims but it evolved from this earlier word.

 

 

Thee only reason why Buddhists and Jains are not considered Hindu is because when Westerners began studying Indian religions, they were a minority as well as Athiestic. Thus they got labeled as Non-Vedic religions.

 

 

No, even when emperor Asoka converted to Buddhism he knew it was different from his family's general religion. His grandfather Chandragupta converted to Jainism and saw it as a different religion from the one he was born into.

 

 

Shivaism is the oldest spiritual Path. Vedism was a minor religion in India before the AD.

 

 

Any soild proof of this? And what form of Shaivism was it? Kashmiri Shavism or Shaiva Siddhata? Or do modern Shaivite sects not have the right to call themselves the oldest religion since their sect started much later that this early form of Saivism? Vedism seems to be pretty big in all the epics and puranas Vedic rituals seem to be quite common.

 

 

The Bhagavatas (Vaishnavas) are not as old as Shivaism. There practices are supposed to have dated back to 800-600 BC during the Upanishadic era. They rejected Brahminism, Vedic rituals and fire sacrifices and were strictly monotheistic worshipping only Krishna.

 

 

Ok, but how come so in many Vaishnava scriptures praise the Vedas, speak well of Brahmins and Vedic rituals? If vaishnavas are so against Brahmins then why do Vaishnavas all have Brahmins amongst them? Brahmins are still respected by all Hindu groups.

 

 

Agter the Gupta era Brahmins gained complete power. They introduced the Manu Smirti, a strict Brahminical Law Code on the entire society. This is when they began Brahminizing all of the religions.

 

 

It makes absolutely no sense of how they can Brahminize all the religions. They failed with Buddhism and Jainism and even Christianity. Were all these religions so weak that they allowed Brahmins to mess them up? What you said here is ridiculous. It does appear that you are very anti-Brahmin and anti-Vedic. You shouldn't let prejudice cloud your judgement. There have been bad Brahmins through history but they could have never been so powerful to change all the religions in India. They are a small caste of poor people who are known for their learning and are not supposed to accululate wealth. How can they ever gain that kind of power to change all the in-you-opinion "anti-vedic" Indian religions? History has shown us the world over that the most powerful people have been the most strongest - Kings and warriors. In India's case, the Ksatriyas.

 

 

The Bhakti religions have their own books, they rejected the Vedas but followed The Gita or other text and worshipped only One God- Krishna, Durga, Rama, etc..

 

 

Strange you say they rejected the Vedas, since off these books they all seem to speak well about the Vedas and certainly revere them. In the Gita itself Krishna says he is the Vedas, the Gayatri, etc and his message is regared as the essence of the Vedas. Another thing, you seem to think that the Vedas doesn't teach there is one God, but the Vedas itself says there is only one God known by different names.

 

 

So concluding, Hinduism is many ancient religions under one big Branch through Brahmin power.

 

 

Well yes and no, there is a unity or set of common beliefs in what we call Hinduism. It seems that many of these sects or "religions" that are regarded as Hindu have some sort of caste or varnaashrama dharma within them, though not all believe in caste by birth and all seem to revere the Vedas, though they don't follow the rituals.

 

 

Also, just in case you didn't know, what many people think Hinduism is because they are told so by people like YOU who give people the wrong idea by living in a closed box and presenting Hinduism according to your own ideas.

 

 

The ideas I present are well known and are believed by at least most Hindus. You seem to represent a small minority with some anti-brahmin prejudice and take in Marxist view of Hinduism which we know cannot be trusted. I think you need to look outside the box.

 

 

Hinduism is highly misrepresented because of upper caste Hindus who come here and present it according to the Brahminical/English view.

 

 

And who are people supposed to listen to You? Certainly not! I'd rather listen to learned Hindus such as Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Chinmaya etc who are acknowledged worldwide. And do not think that we all support Brahmins or the caste system, because we don't. We are just fair, there are good and bad in all castes. Brahmins have made a mess and they've lost whatever limited power they once had.

 

 

Hinduism is nothing but a new term. It never existed in ancient times and it still doesn't exist today when it comes to all of the religions within Hinduism. It is many religions into one big banner.

 

 

If you look in a good dictionary you will see that the term Hinduism certainly does exist. You can define it whatever way you want, but most people have some idea of what it is.

Many sects or religions? Is Catholism are part of Christianity? Is Sufism really a part of Islam? If so then why not these different sects a part of Hinduism? I don't see how the term Hinduism is negative or a curse at all. You just seem to hate it because of Brahmins and the Vedas.

[Guest guest]

 

No need for the history lesson I already know of most of what you say. And Hindu or 'Sindhu' was used before muslims by the Persian zorastrians to describe the people and culture living around the Indus. The word Indus came from the Greeks. Hindu may have been used by muslims but it evolved from this earlier word.

 

 

 

No, even when emperor Asoka converted to Buddhism he knew it was different from his family's general religion. His grandfather Chandragupta converted to Jainism and saw it as a different religion from the one he was born into.

 

 

 

Any soild proof of this? And what form of Shaivism was it? Kashmiri Shavism or Shaiva Siddhata? Or do modern Shaivite sects not have the right to call themselves the oldest religion since their sect started much later that this early form of Saivism? Vedism seems to be pretty big in all the epics and puranas Vedic rituals seem to be quite common.

 

 

 

Ok, but how come so in many Vaishnava scriptures praise the Vedas, speak well of Brahmins and Vedic rituals? If vaishnavas are so against Brahmins then why do Vaishnavas all have Brahmins amongst them? Brahmins are still respected by all Hindu groups.

 

 

 

It makes absolutely no sense of how they can Brahminize all the religions. They failed with Buddhism and Jainism and even Christianity. Were all these religions so weak that they allowed Brahmins to mess them up? What you said here is ridiculous. It does appear that you are very anti-Brahmin and anti-Vedic. You shouldn't let prejudice cloud your judgement. There have been bad Brahmins through history but they could have never been so powerful to change all the religions in India. They are a small caste of poor people who are known for their learning and are not supposed to accululate wealth. How can they ever gain that kind of power to change all the in-you-opinion "anti-vedic" Indian religions? History has shown us the world over that the most powerful people have been the most strongest - Kings and warriors. In India's case, the Ksatriyas.

 

 

 

Strange you say they rejected the Vedas, since off these books they all seem to speak well about the Vedas and certainly revere them. In the Gita itself Krishna says he is the Vedas, the Gayatri, etc and his message is regared as the essence of the Vedas. Another thing, you seem to think that the Vedas doesn't teach there is one God, but the Vedas itself says there is only one God known by different names.

 

 

 

Well yes and no, there is a unity or set of common beliefs in what we call Hinduism. It seems that many of these sects or "religions" that are regarded as Hindu have some sort of caste or varnaashrama dharma within them, though not all believe in caste by birth and all seem to revere the Vedas, though they don't follow the rituals.

 

 

 

The ideas I present are well known and are believed by at least most Hindus. You seem to represent a small minority with some anti-brahmin prejudice and take in Marxist view of Hinduism which we know cannot be trusted. I think you need to look outside the box.

 

 

 

And who are people supposed to listen to You? Certainly not! I'd rather listen to learned Hindus such as Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Chinmaya etc who are acknowledged worldwide. And do not think that we all support Brahmins or the caste system, because we don't. We are just fair, there are good and bad in all castes. Brahmins have made a mess and they've lost whatever limited power they once had.

 

 

 

If you look in a good dictionary you will see that the term Hinduism certainly does exist. You can define it whatever way you want, but most people have some idea of what it is.

Many sects or religions? Is Catholism are part of Christianity? Is Sufism really a part of Islam? If so then why not these different sects a part of Hinduism? I don't see how the term Hinduism is negative or a curse at all. You just seem to hate it because of Brahmins and the Vedas.

 

 

You again have failed to study any history as evident from your response. I wish you luck as you have a lot to learn. I do not want to go around in circles with a person who is not well learned in the subject. It gets tiring after a while.

 

ALSO, Vedas is not origin of Hinduism. Nice try. Lord Krishna said he was the origin of the Vedas because he wanted everyone to drop the Vedas and take his word.

 

The Vedas are completely different from The Gita so it is perfectly fine for Bhakti Panths to to reject the Vedas as they are two different books written by two different people. Vedas is nothing but a manual book with rituals.

 

No you do not represent all of Hinduism and neither do Vivekanda. They were just Gurus. Hinduism is a vast majority of religions and the sect that I follow is cetainly different from yours! So no need to listen to you.Trust me many people are finding out the truth.

 

No one is bieng anti-Brahmin here but when sects clearly reject Vedas and Brahmin duties then I think you need to respect them as bieng Hindus too. People like you have the mindset of the violent Hindustan related organizations, as soon as someone doesn't agree with your definition of Hinduism you call them an anti-Brahmin or Anti-Hindu and then they become a threat to your nationalist agenda.

 

I still find it funny that you want to impose the Vedas on people and call it "authority", this same "auhtority" was used to kill thousands oof Jains and Buddhists and well as millions of low castes and untouchables.

[Guest guest]

Oh and Number 2, I just wanted to clarify to you that the Bhakti religions completely REJECTED caste system or varna. Once you join their sect you must drop all caste distinctions. They accepted the Gita and Upanishdas and REJECTED the VEDAS completely.

[Guest guest]

 

You again have failed to study any history as evident from your response.

 

 

I don't know what history you've been studying, but it seems to be a history concocted in your own head.

 

 

The Vedas are completely different from The Gita so it is perfectly fine for Bhakti Panths to to reject the Vedas as they are two different books written by two different people. Vedas is nothing but a manual book with rituals.

 

 

Read what I've said before...evolution of religion is what has happened in Hinduism. That is what is reflected in these later scriptures which do look back to the Vedas with a reverance.

 

 

Trust me many people are finding out the truth.

 

 

I'm sure they are, and I'm sure they are not half as biased as you.

 

 

No one is bieng anti-Brahmin here but when sects clearly reject Vedas and Brahmin duties then I think you need to respect them as bieng Hindus too.

 

 

From your previous posts you've made it clear your position. You bring all the problems down to Brahmin and Vedas. And for your information I have no problem with accepting sects against Brahmin dominance as Hindus. Whereas I do have a problem accepting sects that promote the hereditary caste system as Hindus, because something like that can never be true.

 

 

People like you have the mindset of the violent Hindustan related organizations, as soon as someone doesn't agree with your definition of Hinduism you call them an anti-Brahmin or Anti-Hindu and then they become a threat to your nationalist agenda.

 

 

Here you go again with your generalising nonsense. You can acuse me of being many things but I know I am not what you seem to have in your mind. Generalising people is something you need to snap out of. It is a bad habit and you a forming a picture of me in you mind that I know is entirely false. For your information, I don't like "violent Hindustan related organisations" or the way they are. I don't like those sort of people, their methods or what they stand for. What I am saying is I find your idea of the history of Hinduism and brahmins "brahminizing" all the Indian religions completely bizarre, but to each his own. By the way, Brahmins are not in power now.

 

 

I still find it funny that you want to impose the Vedas on people and call it "authority", this same "auhtority" was used to kill thousands oof Jains and Buddhists and well as millions of low castes and untouchables.

 

 

Never once did I say I want to impose the Vedas on people, you'll see quite the opposite if you care to read my earlier posts. And where in the Vedas is the authority to kill Buddhists and Jains? Is it the Vedas that said that or people? You better be careful with what you say because giving the wrong impression can cause alot of problems. In case you didn't know the man who shot Gandhi claimed he was inspired by the Gita. Now who or what are you going to blame? Nathuram Godse or the Gita?

 

I've said that very few people follow the vedic religion today, but just have a reverance for it. The Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, etc all seem to have a reverance for the Vedas. Too bad if you don't like this.

[Guest guest]

Looks to me as if YOU don't like the fact that Hinduism is nothing but different spiritual paths into one and that not all Hindu sects follow the Vedas. Even Lord Krishna criticized the Vedas but only respected it's higher truth. Although it is clear he said to come straight to him.

 

Too bad you don't like this...

[Guest guest]

 

Looks to me as if YOU don't like the fact that Hinduism is nothing but different spiritual paths into one and that not all Hindu sects follow the Vedas.

 

 

Look again at what I've said and stop jumping to your pre-conceived conclusions. I'll make it easy for you. The Vedas is hardly studied today, only some Brahmins and Arya Samajis study it. So therefore most Hindus don't follow the Vedas directly. I've said this before but you obviously didn't pay attention. Most Hindu sects that are at least known about follow scriptures derived from the Vedic tradition. But you have a hard time even accepting that the Upanishads are the end portion of the Vedas and are hence Vedic. The schools of thought based on the Upanishads are called Vedanta which means the end or culmination/conclusion of the Vedas. What scholars have noted about Hinduism is it is a complete evolution of a religion. Where the Abrahamic monotheistic religions came from polytheistic Pagan pasts and fought them to the death, Hinduism has managed to evolve comfortably without denying it's past, without declarying holy war on the earlier Vedic religion. As a matter of fact it still has a reverence and respect for the Vedas as can be seen in it's many scriptures.

 

 

Even Lord Krishna criticized the Vedas but only respected it's higher truth. Although it is clear he said to come straight to him.

 

 

So now all of a sudden you're saying Sri Krishna respected the Vedas higher truth, well I see you're changing your tune and now finally we're getting somewhere. Let's see did you know Lord Krishna is believed to be an incarnation of Vishnu? and that Vishnu is first mentioned in, yes you guessed it, the Vedas! Shock horror! Lord Vishnu is a Vedic God! Or do you think that brahmins made that up too?

[Guest guest]

 

Look again at what I've said and stop jumping to your pre-conceived conclusions. I'll make it easy for you. The Vedas is hardly studied today, only some Brahmins and Arya Samajis study it. So therefore most Hindus don't follow the Vedas directly. I've said this before but you obviously didn't pay attention. Most Hindu sects that are at least known about follow scriptures derived from the Vedic tradition. But you have a hard time even accepting that the Upanishads are the end portion of the Vedas and are hence Vedic. The schools of thought based on the Upanishads are called Vedanta which means the end or culmination/conclusion of the Vedas. What scholars have noted about Hinduism is it is a complete evolution of a religion. Where the Abrahamic monotheistic religions came from polytheistic Pagan pasts and fought them to the death, Hinduism has managed to evolve comfortably without denying it's past, without declarying holy war on the earlier Vedic religion. As a matter of fact it still has a reverence and respect for the Vedas as can be seen in it's many scriptures.

 

 

 

So now all of a sudden you're saying Sri Krishna respected the Vedas higher truth, well I see you're changing your tune and now finally we're getting somewhere. Let's see did you know Lord Krishna is believed to be an incarnation of Vishnu? and that Vishnu is first mentioned in, yes you guessed it, the Vedas! Shock horror! Lord Vishnu is a Vedic God! Or do you think that brahmins made that up too?

 

 

I never said he didn't respected higher teachings of the Vedas. He also respected the higher teachings of non-vedic sage Kapila as well as non-vedic Jain tradition since he is historically the cousin of 22nd Thirthankar Neminath. However, Lord Krishna criticed those who recited the Vedas as it was for personal gain and he preached people to follow his word in the Gita. So Lord Krishna is niether Vedic nor Sramanic but Universal.

[Guest guest]

 

I never said he didn't respected higher teachings of the Vedas. He also respected the higher teachings of non-vedic sage Kapila as well as non-vedic Jain tradition since he is historically the cousin of 22nd Thirthankar Neminath. However, Lord Krishna criticed those who recited the Vedas as it was for personal gain and he preached people to follow his word in the Gita. So Lord Krishna is niether Vedic nor Sramanic but Universal.

 

The impression you have been giving is that he was anti-Vedic, which is why I had to remind you that being an incarnation of Vishnu, who was a God rooted in the Vedas, he was never an Anti-Vedic. He says he is the Gayatri mantra, found in the Vedas. Lord Krishna's teachings were Yogic and Vedanatic and we all know where Vedanta came from.

Since Lord Krishna respected the Vedas, maybe you should learn to have some respect too.

[Guest guest]

I never said he didn't respected higher teachings of the Vedas. He also respected the higher teachings of non-vedic sage Kapila as well as non-vedic Jain tradition since he is historically the cousin of 22nd Thirthankar Neminath. However, Lord Krishna criticed those who recited the Vedas as it was for personal gain and he preached people to follow his word in the Gita. So Lord Krishna is niether Vedic nor Sramanic but Universal.

[Guest guest]

 

Looks to me as if YOU don't like the fact that Hinduism is nothing but different spiritual paths into one and that not all Hindu sects follow the Vedas. Even Lord Krishna criticized the Vedas but only respected it's higher truth. Although it is clear he said to come straight to him.

 

Too bad you don't like this...

 

Too bad you are off. Please do furnish some evidence that Krishna criticized the Vedas, but respected its higher truth...whatever that means.

[Guest guest]

I don't know why certain people here do not understand what "Hindu" is trying to convey. It's very easy and simple. He was a universal like character that respected many Vedic and non-Vedic teachings. You cannot argue that.

 

If Lord Krishna respected Vedic and Non-Vedic teachings then you gues should respect that too. The Gita has Vedantic teachingsa as well as many Jain concepts and non Vedic concepts.

[Guest guest]

 

I don't know why certain people here do not understand what "Hindu" is trying to convey. It's very easy and simple. He was a universal like character that respected many Vedic and non-Vedic teachings.

 

The guy seems to have a chip on his shoulder against the Vedas and Brahmins. Now don't get me wrong there are bad Brahmins and caste system is not a good thing, but I think "Hindu_" is taking his hatred a little too far. He accused me of being some sort of Hindu extremist, which I know is far from the truth. He should understand how Hinduism is constatly evolving, the Hinduism of today is different from the Hinduism 1000 years ago and a 1000 years before that.

 

 

If Lord Krishna respected Vedic and Non-Vedic teachings then you gues should respect that too. The Gita has Vedantic teachingsa as well as many Jain concepts and non Vedic concepts.

 

 

I respect all Hindu teachings as well as Buddhist and Jain. I don't have a problem with any community, I'm saying however that Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs were seen as outside the Hindu fold and are generally regarded as seperate religions (though certain Hindus are trying to absorb them), whereas all the various sects that draw spiritual guidance from Vedic, Puranic texts are regarded as Hindu. And groups that follow the Vedas directly are few and far between. But alot of the texts that Hindus do follow such as the Gita, The Upanishads, Ramayana, Puranas do speak in reverence of the Vedas. If they can have respect for the Vedas then I think he should too.

[riih.qarojamahoamaan]

ॐ भूर् भु॑वः सुवः त॑त् सवितु॑र् व॑रेणियं भ॑र्गो देव॑स्य धीमहि धि॑यो यो॑ नः प्रचोद॑यात् (arial unicode fonts)

TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIA RELIGIONS, ONE SHOULD BE MORE WISE THAN A HUMAN BEING. I SUGGEST THAT ALL SHOULD UNITE IN USING ONE MANTRA AND NO OTHER: THE SAAWITRII GAAiATRII. THE SAAWITRII AGREES WITH EVERYBODY, SO BY USING THAT, ALL CAN UNITE. IT IS SAID THAT THE SAAWITRII IS MEANT FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE, AND THAT THERE IS NO MANTRA SUPERIOR TO SAAWITRII. SO, IF YOU WANT TO UNITE, THIS IS THE WAY. "TOGETHER WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL". IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO UNITE, KEEP BEING DIVIDED.