Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus?

[Guest guest]

 

Are you kidding me? Have you read the Manu Smriti? It was created by Brahmins and was IMPOSED on the entire soceity when they gained power with those Rajputs that supported them.

 

 

No, I don't have time to read something like the Manu Smriti. It was imposed on the entire society or just some? What about the resistance? As you have said Brahmins were a small minority in India, so how can they get the power to take over the whole country and make everyone dance to their tune? So are you saying they were like the muslims invaders who went around killing anyone who didn't comply?

 

 

And you are saying how can the Brahmins tamper with those texts while Hindus just sat there> Easy, look at the laws that were created to support and favor the Brahmins. Infact, one could not even harm a Brahmin he would have to be put to death or fined. Yea, I am sure the Hindus became really weak and innocent after that.

 

 

Weak is what they were. If as you say is true, that there were many ancient "Hindu" religions, how can they tolerate for a second their texts being taken over by the small minority of Brahmins? If they truly knew their religion based on the Gita then they should know that they are supposed to fight adharma in all it's forms. Why was there no national uprising that we knew about? One could not harm a Brahmin...I'm aware this is said in the manu smriti, what I'm surprised about is that people actually believed this. So you guys in India need to de-brahminize Hinduism.

 

 

Look at India now, everyone looks up to Brahmins, even though Brahmins continiously shut the doors on low castes and when a non-Brahmin wants to become a priest they are condemned by Brahmins for doing so. If it is that bad now, I can only imagine how bad it was a thousand years ago.The Dalits and Sudras do not even have the power to speak up. They say that God has made them this way-because they are told so by Brahmins. They are so weak-very weak.

 

 

Yes, so you agree they are weak. I'm sorry but you can only blame the people of India for allowing this caste nonsense to continue. If everyone looks up to Brahmins, then it's the people of India's fault. It's their mentality that is sick, that they can believe this nonsense just because some fake Brahmin says so. By the way the dalits and sudras have plotical representations which they are entitled to and they need to keep the demand up. But the big problem is Indian corruption and how easily Indians can be bought over by money.

[sreeram]

Cast system is not a problem of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>. It’s a global problem. There are deferent casts in Muslim (Eg. Shiya and sunni) Christianity (RC.LC. protestants. Orthodox etc). Then why you are criticizing only Hinduism. Hinduism is one of the most liberal religions in this world.

After some years the future generation is going to say similar words on us that we were week to oppose <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place>’s monopoly.

Our ancestors did the same thing what we are doing now. Fearing and obeying the power.

Why you are trying to find the faults of our ancestors. Correct yours self first and then curtsies.

[Guest guest]

 

Really? Is this Adi Shankara? I know Adi Shankara was opposed to the Baghavata (Vaishnava) religion. But he did claim to be a follow of "Krishna" and he did write a commentary on the Gita. Althuogh he did not believe in the principle of action and only focused to knowledge.

 

If you have any more information then please let me know.

 

This was posted sometime ago. This is meant to be a prophecy written before the time of Shankara; but was surprisingly never known to anyone until several centuries after his death. We can either conclude that it is another interpolation or the other possibility is that no one ever read the Garuda Purana until several centuries after Shankara's time.

 

Garudapurana (Brahma kanda, 16th adhyAya)

 

maNimAnnAma daityastu shaN^karAkhyo bhaviShyati |

sarveShAM saN^karaM yastu kariShyati na saMshayaH ||

tena shaN^karanAmA.asau bhaviShyati khageshvara |

dharmAn.h bhAgavatAn.h sarvAn.h vinashyati sarvathA ||

 

A Demon by name maNimAn will come into being as Shankara, who will, no doubt, pollute everything. This is why, O King of birds (Garuda), his name will be Shankara; he will pollute and destroy all BhAgavata Dharmas.

**************************************

[niranjan]

 

Once again you are making a mistake by confusing varna with caste. If you read the descriptions of the different Varnas in the Gita, it is clear that the Brahmana is exalted over the rest.

 

 

 

 

 

The Gita only describes the traits of the Brahmana, which is contemplation of God, straightforwardness,control of the senses, purity of mind and body, and adherence to truth, and anyone who practices this can be a Brahmana.

 

Nowhere in the Gita is it found to be supporting a hereditary caste system.

 

 

Sree Narayana Guru, an enlightened master hailing from Kerala and from the Shudra caste , rebelled successfully against the Brahmins, and opened temples for the shudras and dalits and worked for their welfare and upliftment. He also established an order of monks or sannyasins whom he trained in meditation and yoga.

And from the testimony of one of his sannyasins , it was a rule in his time to chant verses from the Gita before taking lunch. From this it can be understood that he revered the Gita.

 

And it is a common sight to see the statues of Krishna alongside the statues of Sree Narayana Guru , in his institutions in south India.

 

The fact that a shudra spiritual master like him, who have staunchly challenged the Brahmins, still revered the Gita shows that there is no discriminatory verses whatsoever in the Gita,which upholds a birth based caste system.

[hindu12]

 

The Gita only describes the traits of the Brahmana, which is contemplation of God, straightforwardness,control of the senses, purity of mind and body, and adherence to truth, and anyone who practices this can be a Brahmana.

 

Nowhere in the Gita is it found to be supporting a hereditary caste system.

 

 

Sree Narayana Guru, an enlightened master hailing from Kerala and from the Shudra caste , rebelled successfully against the Brahmins, and opened temples for the shudras and dalits and worked for their welfare and upliftment. He also established an order of monks or sannyasins whom he trained in meditation and yoga.

And from the testimony of one of his sannyasins , it was a rule in his time to chant verses from the Gita before taking lunch. From this it can be understood that he revered the Gita.

 

And it is a common sight to see the statues of Krishna alongside the statues of Sree Narayana Guru , in his institutions in south India.

 

The fact that a shudra spiritual master like him, who have staunchly challenged the Brahmins, still revered the Gita shows that there is no discriminatory verses whatsoever in the Gita,which upholds a birth based caste system.

 

Out of the 700 hundred verses in the Gita, varna is mentioned twice.First is when Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that he has "created the 4 varnas according to qualities and energies", then a little later when Krishna mentions that "women and sudras can also attain Godhood" through him.Many scholars believe that the mention of varna has nothing to do with Lord Krishna's teachings in the Gita. It seems rather odd to them that caste references popped up out of no where. Some scholars are of the fact these were later interpolations.

[niranjan]

 

Are you kidding me? Have you read the Manu Smriti? It was created by Brahmins and was IMPOSED on the entire soceity when they gained power with those Rajputs that supported them.

 

I am no supporter of the Manu smriti, but check some verses of the Manu Smriti itself......

 

In the manu smriti , when it comes to stance of hereditary caste system, the verse below is believed to sanction support for vocational non-hereditary caste system.

"As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya" (X: 65)

 

Also I have read in the Manu Smriti that no sin is incurred if a shudra kills a Brahmin who is out to kill him , in self -defence.

 

Through this I am not trying to justify the manu smriti, only trying to state its stance with regard to a hereditary caste system, considering

the fact that it is the most pro-Brahmin manual.

[riih.qarojamahoamaan]

The turkic languages are very concise. i cannot remember the exact words now, a turkish proverb says:

"THE SAGE DID NOT FLY, HIS DISCIPLE MADE HIM FLY".

All indian religions have mantras for obtaining the siddhi of knowlegde, i have elsewhere started a thread to collect such mantras and yantras, but nobody has contributed. Pity. Knowledge of truth only could make people unite.

[Guest guest]

 

I am no supporter of the Manu smriti, but check some verses of the Manu Smriti itself......

 

In the manu smriti , when it comes to stance of hereditary caste system, the verse below is believed to sanction support for vocational non-hereditary caste system.

"As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya" (X: 65)

 

Also I have read in the Manu Smriti that no sin is incurred if a shudra kills a Brahmin who is out to kill him , in self -defence.

 

Through this I am not trying to justify the manu smriti, only trying to state its stance with regard to a hereditary caste system, considering

the fact that it is the most pro-Brahmin manual.

 

 

Yes, I'm aware of those verses. There are also verses in favour of women, despite the fact that manu smriti is also seen as sexist. Groups like the Arya Samaj try to bring out positive teachings in the Vedas and manu smriti, but you will still get a backlash from people like 'hindu12', who can't seem to tolerate anything from the Vedas.

 

 

I am not writing for the sake of bieng a believer in Krishna but I have read a few scholars who claim Krishna was not historical, but I believe that Lord Krishna was without a doubt a real historical person that lived as a king, a saviour of his community, and a philosopher. As to when he lived in in the air and I can only speculate somewhere between 900BC-600BC. I do not agree with the Vedic dates such as 3102BC

 

You shouldn't be reading ths thread if you do not wish to discuss historical context of Lord Krishna, Mahabharata(Gita) or Hinduism for that matter.

 

 

OK so I read from your previous posts that you believe Krishna was historical and those dates you provided is what I would agree on if a historical Krishna ever did live at all. Krishna, the son of Devaki is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad (900BC) with his guru being Ghora Angirasa. This could be a reference to the real historical Krishna. Sometimes I wonder if the puranic Krishna is all the Krishna's in one person including Sage Vyasa whose name was also Krishna. Maybe he started the school of Vedanta as the Gita is largely a Vedantic text and Krishna says "I am the author of the Vedanta".

I want to know if you believe the Gita is the world of the historical Krishna or not. I say this as those dates you gave for the historical Krishna indicates that the Gita is not from his mouth as it came a few hundred years later. I've come across Hindus who don't believe in Krishna but take the Gita as their scripture as they see it as a true scripture for god-realisation written by Vyasa as a diologue between God and man. It it Vyasa they honour, not Krishna. Although they don't believe it came from Lord Krishna's mouth , they believe the information it contains is true for any seeker of God.

[hindu12]

 

Yes, I'm aware of those verses. There are also verses in favour of women, despite the fact that manu smriti is also seen as sexist. Groups like the Arya Samaj try to bring out positive teachings in the Vedas and manu smriti, but you will still get a backlash from people like 'hindu12', who can't seem to tolerate anything from the Vedas.

 

 

 

OK so I read from your previous posts that you believe Krishna was historical and those dates you provided is what I would agree on if a historical Krishna ever did live at all. Krishna, the son of Devaki is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad (900BC) with his guru being Ghora Angirasa. This could be a reference to the real historical Krishna. Sometimes I wonder if the puranic Krishna is all the Krishna's in one person including Sage Vyasa whose name was also Krishna. Maybe he started the school of Vedanta as the Gita is largely a Vedantic text and Krishna says "I am the author of the Vedanta".

I want to know if you believe the Gita is the world of the historical Krishna or not. I say this as those dates you gave for the historical Krishna indicates that the Gita is not from his mouth as it came a few hundred years later. I've come across Hindus who don't believe in Krishna but take the Gita as their scripture as they see it as a true scripture for god-realisation written by Vyasa as a diologue between God and man. It it Vyasa they honour, not Krishna. Although they don't believe it came from Lord Krishna's mouth , they believe the information it contains is true for any seeker of God.

 

 

Well any Hindu or person that faithfully follows the Gita and does not believe in Lord Krishna is doing a great dishonor. At least this is my opinion. The Gita and Anu Gita are clearly spoken in a dialogue form and Lord Krishna is clearly the giver of the message. Therefore, you must honor thy deliverer and not they writer.

 

In addition, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Lord Krishna was a historical person-a legendary non-aryan King (conquerer) and at least a savior or a divine hero in his community as the worship or "cult" of Krishna dates well back to 600 BC or even before. There is not much known about this cult but what is known is that they rejected fire sacrifices and penances and believed in simple rites of worship and followed the upanishadic approach to life.

 

As per the Gita, the Mahabharata and his puranic stories, I believe there are historical truths in them. However, I also believe they are different from the original or how it may have happened originally as they have been re-written.

 

The references to Krishna in the Chadogya Upanishad are anywhere from 900-700 BC and Sage Kapila lived sometime during 700 BC. It is often stated that the original teaching Lord Krishna gives Arjuna is based on the philosophy of Samkhya and karma yoga as well as the act of courage, action and bravery which is also originally have said to be teachings of Krishna.The rest are generally believed to be additions. But again this is based on mere faith.

 

It is also important to note that the teachings that are stated in the Chandogya Upanishad which are imparted to Lord Krishna are said to match the teachings in the Gita.So this is evidence that the teachings within the Gita, at least a good portion of it are directly from Krishna.

 

The fact that Vasya wrote the Gita doesn't mean we should worship him.In fact, in reality we do not know who the author of the Gita was. In addition, the discourse in the Gita was not written during the time of the battle field. It was Sanjaya who went back and directed the conversation to Vyasa and then he wrote it.Anyway, By this logic, Christians should worship the author of the bible and not Jesus, Buddhists should acknowledge the authors of the Dhammapada and not Buddha, Muslims should acknowledge the Angels that authored the Koran and not Mohhamad. I mean technically speaking, all of these authors that wrote the various teachings of all of these religions could have been anyone and could have written anything.

 

In other words, the only reason why Lord Krishna's historicity is somewhat confusing is because there is not a good chronology of his life as all accounts of him are rather scattered and a bit confusing. The same goes for many Jain Gurus and early Buddhas. All ancient persons accounts are rather distorted somewhat. In addtion, If Lord Krishna was not a real person then the Jain Thirtankara Neminath would also not be a real person as they were both cousins, and I don't think that would go over well with the Jains.

 

In addition, how do we know the Buddha was real? I mean we all know there was a historical person named Siddharta that was reffered to as the Buddha but there are a list of 28 different Buddhas! Why do Buddhists still have so much faith? And why doesn't anyone question the historicity of "the Buddha"? Same thing with Jesus and Mohhamad and Mahavir. There is no evidence these people ever existed other then evidence from scriptures, stories and writings and MAINLY, because these 4 have a better chronolical record depicting their life in a neat and timely manner.

 

I arrest my case.

[hindu12]

Actually I wanted to say one more thing incase there may be that one person that will come back and try and refute the historicity if Krishna and the "Krishna cult" mentioned above on the basis that if they indeed were an ancient cult dating back to 600 BC or before and based on Upanishadic tradition then why were they not mentioned in Jaina and Buddha literature?

 

Well simple as this- India has always had many spiritual traditions and the Buddha and Mahavir clearly lived sometime between 600-500 BC and bieng that India was a HUGE place, their teachings would have remained within their communities they preached and would have taken considerable amount of time to reach to all parts of India.

 

On another note, Lord Krishna is mentioned in the Jataka tales of Buddhism as an ancient King along with his brother Balarama and Lord Krishna is obviously mentioned in Jaina literatures as the cousin of Neminath as well as other accounts based on their version of the Mahabharata and other stories.

 

Here is a good link with information about Krishna and Buddha....

 

members.rediff.com/kmg/bk.htm

[riih.qarojamahoamaan]

Christians are Vaisnavaas. They believe that God has incarnated as Jesus Christ, and the three persons of the trinity are God as personality, as lord of the Universe, and as the spirit dwelling in everybody; i can see no essential difference to Vaisnava faith as expounded by Shriila Prabhupada. If we accept Krsna as God, then why not Christ as well?

 

Don't stick to names! all those who worship God should unite, and all those who worship the devil should be kept out.

[riih.qarojamahoamaan]

By the way, every religion has a devil as the supreme ruler of powers of evil and darkness. So there is devil in Christian faith, Ariman in old Persian faith, Seytan in Islam, and so on. Would someone be kind enough to explain what is the Hindu form of devil? and what is the form of devil in Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain religions?

[hindu12]

I believe all divine personalities such as Jesus, Krishna, Heru, Vishnu, Mohammad, and Buddha-Siddharta are all incarnations of the Lord. They all came in some form or another and did something for people and or showed them a path.

 

However, I believe in ancient times it was a lot easier for one to accept a King or a philosopher as a form of God then it is in todays world-with the exception of some such as Sai Baba and certain Gurus who are seen as incarnations even today.

 

My whole point here is the fact that there is a belief among some people that Hinduism is a mythical religion based on non historical characters while Buddhism and Jainism which also flourished on the same soil are seen as real historical truths. Further, this is freely accepted by many Hindus- to see their religion as a myth. This is nothing but weakness on the part of Hindus and this is the very reason why Hindus convert easily and lose faith because they are told so by Christian missionaries as well as some biased scholars.

 

The fact is, while Hindus today thoroughly read the scriptures, they fail to read any history and thus believing what they are told by outsiders about their own religion.

 

There are three types of scholars- those who are vedic, those who study Hinduism with a bias motive and those who are neutral. Now in my opinion, I do not trust the Vedic scholars as they often come up with ellaborate dates on scriptures and divine figures within Hinduism and you also have people like NS Rajaram who are a laughing stock among communities as he has been proved to be a fruad. This is not only among Hindus, pro Christian scholars and pro Islamic scholars are wacked in the head as well.

 

The bias scholars or historians like Romila Thapar, AL Basham (in some cases) generally enter the field with their own motives. Romila Thapar teaches that Krishna and Rama never existed and that Hinduism is the worst religion in the world. Further, she constantly ties in Hindu nationalism and RSS in her books and writings which further shows that she is promoting lies about Hinduism in order to attack the RSS and nationalism. In addtion, her book hasn't been updated in decades and not to mention how she changed her theory around a few times with first promoting the Aryan invasion theory and then switching to migration theory. Communists have their own political agenda and in my eyes they are no different than any religious regime such as those Brahmins, Christian Churches and Islamic states that have casually murdered thousands and manipulated innocent people in the name of religion-the only difference is, communists do not do it in the name of religion.

 

Further, why are Hindu Gods seen to be fake, while Buddha, Jesus and Mohammad are seen to be real? Have you thoroughly researched these characters? Do you know that there is just as good as possibility that all of these divine figures may as well be myths? Do you know that the story of Jesus is identical to an earlier Egyptian God named Heru? Do you know that there are 28 different Buddha's and there is no such way to tell which teachings contained in the Dhammapada belonged to which Buddha? Do you know that the Chinese dates for the birth of Buddha are 11 century BC, while Hindu dates are 1793 or 1807 BC, while Tibet gives 835 BC, while Sri Lankan dates give 483 B.C, but most western scholars go by the Sri Lankan date of 563-483BC. But why doesn't anyone care to question if he was real or not since there are so many supposed dates, not to mention a series of Buddhas?

 

 

I am not trying to attack Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity or Islam here but rather trying to show people here that there you must research carefully and not listen to what anyone tells you.

 

So why so some scholars pick of the historicity of Hinduism while not other religions?

 

Simple, due to Brahmin supremacy and the disgusting and inhumane caste system they have imposed on India which many of them freely support and due to their violent history- there are a LOT of biased information against Hinduism. In addition, there is a myth bieng promoted by these biased scholars that Buddhism and Jainism were heroes and champions of the people because they gave India the doctrine of non-violence and peace while Hinduism gave them inequality through caste opression. In addtion, Hinduism is always seen as synonymous with Brahminism when actually majority of Hinduism contributors were people of non Brahmin class and only due to Brahmin power they are seen as the so called "inventors" of Hinduism.

 

In short, Hinduism is a beautiful religion and many great saints, sages and divine personalities have contributed to it, but needs to be fixed. Buddhism and Jainism did refute the priestly class but they were neither a reform nor a protest to Hinduism because there was no such thing as Hinduism back then. There were many beliefs and honestly, the majority of those who are considered Hindu lived very peacefully with Buddhists and Jains.

[sreeram]

The re may be similiraity in some concept between vaisnavas and Christianity, but you cannot say Christians are vaisnavas. Christianity is a deferent religion and vaisnava is a branch of Hindu religion. The main thing to compare a religion is the culture and the way of living.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, I'm aware of those verses. There are also verses in favour of women, despite the fact that manu smriti is also seen as sexist. Groups like the Arya Samaj try to bring out positive teachings in the Vedas and manu smriti, but you will still get a backlash from people like 'hindu12', who can't seem to tolerate anything from the Vedas.

 

 

 

OK so I read from your previous posts that you believe Krishna was historical and those dates you provided is what I would agree on if a historical Krishna ever did live at all. Krishna, the son of Devaki is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad (900BC) with his guru being Ghora Angirasa. This could be a reference to the real historical Krishna. Sometimes I wonder if the puranic Krishna is all the Krishna's in one person including Sage Vyasa whose name was also Krishna. Maybe he started the school of Vedanta as the Gita is largely a Vedantic text and Krishna says "I am the author of the Vedanta".

I want to know if you believe the Gita is the world of the historical Krishna or not. I say this as those dates you gave for the historical Krishna indicates that the Gita is not from his mouth as it came a few hundred years later. I've come across Hindus who don't believe in Krishna but take the Gita as their scripture as they see it as a true scripture for god-realisation written by Vyasa as a diologue between God and man. It it Vyasa they honour, not Krishna. Although they don't believe it came from Lord Krishna's mouth , they believe the information it contains is true for any seeker of God.

 

Quite interesting indeed. You are right. It seems as if though Hindus have

more faith is varna dharma then they do with the existence of their own Gods. If you ask a Hindu whether Krishna spoke the Gita or whether any of their Gods exist, they will freely tell you that it's probably a myth not reality. However, if you ask Hindus whether they think Varna Dharam was an interpolation within the Gita or whether it is needed to be followed, they will do everything to tell people how varna dharam is in the scriptures and it is a vital part of Hinduism. They will do everything to stick up for their varna dharam. It cannot be a bad element within Hinduism, the Brahmins could not have screwed with the scriptutes, but the Gods, oh their probably not real. Amazing.

[hindu12]

 

Quite interesting indeed. You are right. It seems as if though Hindus have

more faith is varna dharma then they do with the existence of their own Gods. If you ask a Hindu whether Krishna spoke the Gita or whether any of their Gods exist, they will freely tell you that it's probably a myth not reality. However, if you ask Hindus whether they think Varna Dharam was an interpolation within the Gita or whether it is needed to be followed, they will do everything to tell people how varna dharam is in the scriptures and it is a vital part of Hinduism. They will do everything to stick up for their varna dharam. It cannot be a bad element within Hinduism, the Brahmins could not have screwed with the scriptutes, but the Gods, oh their probably not real. Amazing.

 

Yes that is somwhat true. Hindus need to gain back their faith in the REAL Gods and Goddess's. If you do not believe your Lord exists then there why do arti to them? Why follow their teachings?

 

You know the Puranas are stories about these Gods and Goddess's. Harivamsa Puranas depict the life and past times of Krishna.

 

Puranas are history, stories, folklore and they have a lot of truth in them. I just believe certain things have been changed around and exagarated.

[sreeram]

Now a days in Hinduism gurus are more than gods and these gurus asking the followers to treat them as god do artis on their photo. People should recognize who is god and who is human. This is happening because of the liberal mentality of Hinduism. Here every one is free for doing such foolish things and the interesting thing is that you get followers too.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes that is somwhat true. Hindus need to gain back their faith in the REAL Gods and Goddess's. If you do not believe your Lord exists then there why do arti to them? Why follow their teachings?

 

 

Alot of it is really because of the stories of the puranas. Some of the stories do appear far-fetched, so when a scholar says it's mythology, the Hindus agree because it's the easy way out of having to explain something like the story of Ganesh. In your opinion how do you prove the existence of the 'REAL gods and goddesses'?

 

 

Well any Hindu or person that faithfully follows the Gita and does not believe in Lord Krishna is doing a great dishonor. At least this is my opinion. The Gita and Anu Gita are clearly spoken in a dialogue form and Lord Krishna is clearly the giver of the message.

 

 

But you said that Hinduism is a modern word used to describe all the different religions in India. But not all Hindus follow or believe in the Gita, for example the schools of Shaiva Siddhanta and Tantra do not follow the Gita. So are they doing a great dishonour, since the Gita was never accepted in their canon of scriptures?

 

Speaking to those who do faithfully follow Gita but do not believe in Krishna, it's because of Krishna supposedly living in an earlier age than when the Gita was written, so therefore it cannot be his actual words, but of someone else who wrote it later. They get their inspiration from the Sage that wrote the Gita. There is quite alot of Hindus I've come across who share this view. They follow it because all the teachings in it is consistent with the Upanishads and makes the Vedanta philosophy practical to everyday life. They view Krishna as being symbolic of Brahman.

 

 

I believe all divine personalities such as Jesus, Krishna, Heru, Vishnu, Mohammad, and Buddha-Siddharta are all incarnations of the Lord.

 

 

Mohammad an incarnation of the Lord? What's wrong with you! The fact that you would include him there cheapens the whole idea of divine incarnations. And I'm sure muslims would want to kill you for saying that.

[hindu12]

 

Alot of it is really because of the stories of the puranas. Some of the stories do appear far-fetched, so when a scholar says it's mythology, the Hindus agree because it's the easy way out of having to explain something like the story of Ganesh. In your opinion how do you prove the existence of the 'REAL gods and goddesses'?

 

 

 

But you said that Hinduism is a modern word used to describe all the different religions in India. But not all Hindus follow or believe in the Gita, for example the schools of Shaiva Siddhanta and Tantra do not follow the Gita. So are they doing a great dishonour, since the Gita was never accepted in their canon of scriptures?

 

Speaking to those who do faithfully follow Gita but do not believe in Krishna, it's because of Krishna supposedly living in an earlier age than when the Gita was written, so therefore it cannot be his actual words, but of someone else who wrote it later. They get their inspiration from the Sage that wrote the Gita. There is quite alot of Hindus I've come across who share this view. They follow it because all the teachings in it is consistent with the Upanishads and makes the Vedanta philosophy practical to everyday life. They view Krishna as being symbolic of Brahman.

 

 

 

Mohammad an incarnation of the Lord? What's wrong with you! The fact that you would include him there cheapens the whole idea of divine incarnations. And I'm sure muslims would want to kill you for saying that.

 

Actually you are wrong on that point. But nice try. the Jataka tales of Buddhism has mythology, The bible stories have mythology and the Koran has mythology. Hindus are a weak people. They have more faith in the Brahmin that created the varna and wrote the Vedas then Lord Krishna that spoke the Gita. That is the truth and you very well demonstrated that.

 

 

When I made the statement that Hindus who follow the Gita but do not believe in Lord Krishna are doing great dishonor. I meant THOSE HINDUS WHO DO FOLLOW THE GITA. As we know that not all do, many follow the Ramayana, Vedas and Upanishads. Please reread carefully because coming here and twisting my words around.

 

Yes you must believe in Lord Krishna if you follow the Gita. The Gita was actually written only a few hundreds years after his suggested date-the most 400 hundred. Buddhists tests were also written a few hundred years after his death and same goes for many other ancient saints and sages. So given this logic no one should revere the the Lord that spoke the word in many religions.

 

You don't make any sense. I do find it funny though how you reply to my posts by trying to stick up for the fact that Hindus should not be able to have to believe in the existence of their Lord. But when the issue of Brahmins scrweing around with Hinduism, you do everything to stick up for them and put your very faith in them. It is a known fact that Brahmins wanted everyone to pray to them not to the God's or Goddess's and you my friend are a great example of a person who has more faith in Brahmins then you do for Lord Krishna, Rama Shiva or Durga. I arrest my case.

[hindu12]

 

Alot of it is really because of the stories of the puranas. Some of the stories do appear far-fetched, so when a scholar says it's mythology, the Hindus agree because it's the easy way out of having to explain something like the story of Ganesh. In your opinion how do you prove the existence of the 'REAL gods and goddesses'?

 

 

How do you prove the existence of Jesus? Buddha? Or any other historical figure? Like I have stated earlier, there is no way to prove the existence any God besides what has been written in stories, writing and scriptures. Like I have stated earlier, the puranas have a lot of history in them. But they have been rewritten with exagaration.

 

All other religions have faith. Buddhists have faith in a Buddha, Christians have faith in Jesus and Muslims have faith Mohhamad but Hindus (LIKE YOU) do not have faith in your God's and Goddess's, you have faith in Brahmins.

[Guest guest]

Number 2,

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. How can you say Krishna never spoke the Gita? Please do not come here and disrespect Krishna and his gospel. I sincerely hope you do not follow the Gita. You have no respect by coming here. Hindu12 and many others have already demonstrated that according to research there is more evidence that Krishna did speak the Gita then evidence that he didn't. Only some biased scholars say it was a work of Brahmins. I can't believe you are coming here and trying to argue the fact that Krishna is not real. You seriously need to get a life.

[Guest guest]

 

When I made the statement that Hindus who follow the Gita but do not believe in Lord Krishna are doing great dishonor. I meant THOSE HINDUS WHO DO FOLLOW THE GITA. As we know that not all do, many follow the Ramayana, Vedas and Upanishads. Please reread carefully because coming here and twisting my words around.

 

 

Twisting your words around? Don't think you're so important! You appear rather arrogant or paranoid whenever someone questions your posts. And if you are really a follower of Krishna you will know arrogance is not a good thing. You seem to take everything as a confrontation.

 

 

Yes you must believe in Lord Krishna if you follow the Gita. The Gita was actually written only a few hundreds years after his suggested date-the most 400 hundred. Buddhists tests were also written a few hundred years after his death and same goes for many other ancient saints and sages. So given this logic no one should revere the the Lord that spoke the word in many religions.

 

 

You can revere the lord no problem, but if you read what I've said I said that the Gita as we have today may not be what Sri Krishna actually said word for word. You yourself believed Brahmins have tampered with it. So therefore it's a corrupted Gita we have today. As for Buddhists text being written after Buddha, so what? I'm not concerned about them. I'm focusing on the Gita and Sri Krishna.

 

 

You don't make any sense. I do find it funny though how you reply to my posts by trying to stick up for the fact that Hindus should not be able to have to believe in the existence of their Lord. But when the issue of Brahmins scrweing around with Hinduism, you do everything to stick up for them and put your very faith in them. It is a known fact that Brahmins wanted everyone to pray to them not to the God's or Goddess's and you my friend are a great example of a person who has more faith in Brahmins then you do for Lord Krishna, Rama Shiva or Durga. I arrest my case.

 

 

I don't make any sense, or you maybe you're not bright enough to understand. Now I've said about your jumping to conclusions before and here you go and demonstrate it again. You don't come across as very bright, just some joker with weird ideas who liked to force his version of Hinduism to others. I'm not even going to say anything else about Brahmins and putting my faith in them? You really don't know a thing about me. I've been here on this board for a long time, while you haven't seen the many posts where I've criticised them. Yet you form a totally inaccurate picture in your head that I'm a defender of Brahmins. There is nothing more to say to people like you. You can live in your world of paranoia forever, for all that I care.

 

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. How can you say Krishna never spoke the Gita? Please do not come here and disrespect Krishna and his gospel. I sincerely hope you do not follow the Gita. You have no respect by coming here. Hindu12 and many others have already demonstrated that according to research there is more evidence that Krishna did speak the Gita then evidence that he didn't. Only some biased scholars say it was a work of Brahmins. I can't believe you are coming here and trying to argue the fact that Krishna is not real. You seriously need to get a life.

 

 

Actually YOU have no idea what you're talking about. You need to do some research and I mean un-biased research. When did Krishna live? some say 5000 years ago, Some say 900-600 BC. But the Gita came later around 600-300BC or as some say later. So there can be no proof that it was entirely his words, maybe some of it was, but some could've been added. Hindu12 has even said that Brahmins have tampered with it, so how can it be the pure words of Krishna? I wonder if you really are hindu12 coming on under another name. I wouldn't be surprised.

[hindu12]

 

Twisting your words around? Don't think you're so important! You appear rather arrogant or paranoid whenever someone questions your posts. And if you are really a follower of Krishna you will know arrogance is not a good thing. You seem to take everything as a confrontation.

 

 

 

You can revere the lord no problem, but if you read what I've said I said that the Gita as we have today may not be what Sri Krishna actually said word for word. You yourself believed Brahmins have tampered with it. So therefore it's a corrupted Gita we have today. As for Buddhists text being written after Buddha, so what? I'm not concerned about them. I'm focusing on the Gita and Sri Krishna.

 

 

 

I don't make any sense, or you maybe you're not bright enough to understand. Now I've said about your jumping to conclusions before and here you go and demonstrate it again. You don't come across as very bright, just some joker with weird ideas who liked to force his version of Hinduism to others. I'm not even going to say anything else about Brahmins and putting my faith in them? You really don't know a thing about me. I've been here on this board for a long time, while you haven't seen the many posts where I've criticised them. Yet you form a totally inaccurate picture in your head that I'm a defender of Brahmins. There is nothing more to say to people like you. You can live in your world of paranoia forever, for all that I care.

 

 

 

Actually YOU have no idea what you're talking about. You need to do some research and I mean un-biased research. When did Krishna live? some say 5000 years ago, Some say 900-600 BC. But the Gita came later around 600-300BC or as some say later. So there can be no proof that it was entirely his words, maybe some of it was, but some could've been added. Hindu12 has even said that Brahmins have tampered with it, so how can it be the pure words of Krishna? I wonder if you really are hindu12 coming on under another name. I wouldn't be surprised.

Well it's sad to see you depart from this debate. I do understand that you cannot post any longer because your emotions are running a little too high.

I don't think I ever said I am important. However, you seem to think I am very important as you seem to be very concerned with my posts and you seem to be quite intimidated by my knowledge about Hinduism and you try so graciously to get me down at every chance. Unfortunately, you fail to do so and I stand strong everytime. With that said, I wish you the the best. Do come back and respond sometime. If you would like some reading material, I wouldn't mind providing you a list.

 

 

You said I can revere the Lord, I do and I have stated that and made it quite obvious that I surrender to Lord Krishna and HIS gospel-THE GITA. I think it was you who questioned his historicity and his linkage to the Gita. When I provided dates and research which proves that there are more possiblities leading towards a historical Krishna and that there are more possibilities that he spoke MOST of the Gita, you came with your usual non sense by claiming Lord Krishna may not have been real. If you believe that fine but you failed to back up any claims in doing so. I have faith in Lord Krishna! What do you have? Doubt? Well you can live your life in doubts and sink in the pool of illusion while I do away with my research on Hinduism and search for the truth in it.

 

In addition, first you said that Lord Krishna may not be real but then after I provided my point of view, you switched your view and then began promoting the fact that if he was real then not all of the Gita could have been spoken by him given the dates. Do you actually read any of my posts? Or do you just come here and mouth out non sense for fun? If you read my EARLIER post then you would know that I have ALREADY stated that things have been added to Lord Krishna's Gita possibly due to tampering by the Brahmin class. So why do you wish to repeat something that I already touched upon? Either you don't care to read what I write because you don't care about this thread and are basically just coming here to boast your ego by trying to prove me wrong or you are just plain ignorant. I would go with the former. As I do not think you are an ignorant person. I am just indirectly hinting to you that you have a lot of learning to do.

 

Why do you tell me to do "unbiased" research? Maybe you should tell yourself that. When I do research, I read from Pro-Hindu, Neutral and Anti-Hindu sites as I have ALREADY stated in an earlier post when I touched on the topic of Hinduism and historicity. Did you not read that as well? Wow, what are you responding to? Maybe you think I am biased due to my blatant criticism of the Brahmin class but that's only because from all the research I have done, my view leansthat way. I do not believe all Brahmins are bad BUT I do believe many are oppresive and they have tampered with Hinduism. I will never hesitate to criticize them either. There are millions suffering under their regime and I think you should think about those millions then thinking about the 4 percent of Brahmins that exist.

 

Further, you ask me why I bring up Buddha and that you are not concerned with Buddha because we are focusing on Krishna. Again, maybe you should look OUTSIDE the box when you do research. As I have stated, when studying the hostoricity of Lord Krishna, it is vital to study the historicity of other religions and religious figures and how their life has been molded by scholars and historians. Just like it is essental to study any subject which are co-related to your particular subject as this gives you a better understanding and helps you gain perspective on topics. You obviously do not use this method and seem to stick to a one shot study of a person. That is fine but you still have not proven much to display how Lord Krishna did not speak the Gita or may not be real. You seem to be in doubt. I don't know what kind of Hindu you are. Maybe you believe in Brahman and formless creator, therefore you don't believe in the dieties and puranas. Maybe you follow only the Vedas as you do seem to display their superiority by stating that everything comes from it. If this is the case then you should state your beliefs then one can understand why you feel the way you do. Either way, I do not think a Hindu who does not revere the teacher is not strong.

 

Lastly, you attack me by telling me that I am not bright. Maybe this was done as a come back since you failed to attack me with knowledge. Maybe you think I am not bright. I do not care. I have read many books and I know why I post what I post. Maybe you should stop posting with so much emotion. Maybe you don't like that fact. Whatever it is, you need to look within yourself because sometimes, that very feeling you accuse others of (paranoia) lies within yourself.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the long reply, again full of pure paranoia. I can see from your

extra long post, you've really let yourself loose on me.

 

Who said I'm departing from this debate? I just said I can't talk with people like you, who are nothing but confrontational. I see this as a discussion to understand more, not an argument. And you take it bad that I don't believe in your conspiracy theory's, I really couldn't care less. I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other stuff.

 

 

you try so graciously to get me down at every chance. Unfortunately, you fail to do so and I stand strong everytime.

 

 

Dream on buddy, fanning your own ego as usual. I'm not trying to get you down, if you get yourself down, then it's your own fault. You certainly haven't learn't some of Sri Krishna's most basic teachings about the ego. You haven't once stood stong since you came onto this site. You have some of the weirdest ideas that I just cannot take you seriously. At least with some of the other posters here we can have an intellectual debate, but you are just a slave to your ego.

 

 

When I provided dates and research which proves that there are more possiblities leading towards a historical Krishna and that there are more possibilities that he spoke MOST of the Gita, you came with your usual non sense by claiming Lord Krishna may not have been real.

 

If you believe that fine but you failed to back up any claims in doing so.

 

 

The thing is you are jumping to conclusions again. I said some Hindus do not believe in Lord Krishna but follow the Gita and from talking with them I've given their reasons why. If you must know they are usually Impersonalists who follow advaita or neo-advaita. I never said I didn't believe in Lord Krishna. Some Hindu's, does not mean me, it means some Hindu's who I have come across. But since you're the paranoid type, dream on.

 

 

I have faith in Lord Krishna!

 

 

Well good for you. But it's a shame you can't put his teachings into practice as you have clearly demonstrated.

 

 

If you read my EARLIER post then you would know that I have ALREADY stated that things have been added to Lord Krishna's Gita possibly due to tampering by the Brahmin class. So why do you wish to repeat something that I already touched upon?

 

 

Why not discuss it? Why avoid it? If Brahmins did really tamper with it as you say, is the Gita we have today the exact same words (100%) that Sri Krishna gave to Arjuna all those years ago?

 

 

Why do you tell me to do "unbiased" research? Maybe you should tell yourself that. When I do research, I read from Pro-Hindu, Neutral and Anti-Hindu sites as I have ALREADY stated in an earlier post when I touched on the topic of Hinduism and historicity.

 

 

Well then you are admitting you really are warriorboy, because it was to him I told to do unbiased research. It's quite sad that you need to come under another name to show support for yourself. Actually I do unbiased research taking in what makes sense from a variety of different sources and things that are hard to believe with a pinch of salt. And I find too many groups of researchers have their own agenda so it's hard to trust many of them. I tend to believe in the historical Krishna and when it comes to all aspects of life, I'm a seeker of truth.

 

 

I do not believe all Brahmins are bad BUT I do believe many are oppresive and they have tampered with Hinduism. I will never hesitate to criticize them either. There are millions suffering under their regime and I think you should think about those millions then thinking about the 4 percent of Brahmins that exist.

 

 

Well I share your views on Brahmins. But like all people in all groups, you've got good and bad. What I don't like is Brahmins who do not live the life or have the character of a brahmin as given in the Gita, but still go around demanding others respect them just because they are born into a Brahmin family.

 

 

Lastly, you attack me by telling me that I am not bright. Maybe this was done as a come back since you failed to attack me with knowledge.

 

 

Well I do think that you're incapable of having a decent discussion, as I've already tried with you. It's as simple as that. If someone brings up another point you disagree with, you jump down their throats! This does not display maturity, but rather insecurity and fanaticism. I can't talk with people like that because most of them are a waste of time.

[hindu12]

 

Thanks for the long reply, again full of pure paranoia. I can see from your

extra long post, you've really let yourself loose on me.

 

Who said I'm departing from this debate? I just said I can't talk with people like you, who are nothing but confrontational. I see this as a discussion to understand more, not an argument. And you take it bad that I don't believe in your conspiracy theory's, I really couldn't care less. I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other stuff.

 

 

 

Dream on buddy, fanning your own ego as usual. I'm not trying to get you down, if you get yourself down, then it's your own fault. You certainly haven't learn't some of Sri Krishna's most basic teachings about the ego. You haven't once stood stong since you came onto this site. You have some of the weirdest ideas that I just cannot take you seriously. At least with some of the other posters here we can have an intellectual debate, but you are just a slave to your ego.

 

 

 

The thing is you are jumping to conclusions again. I said some Hindus do not believe in Lord Krishna but follow the Gita and from talking with them I've given their reasons why. If you must know they are usually Impersonalists who follow advaita or neo-advaita. I never said I didn't believe in Lord Krishna. Some Hindu's, does not mean me, it means some Hindu's who I have come across. But since you're the paranoid type, dream on.

 

 

 

Well good for you. But it's a shame you can't put his teachings into practice as you have clearly demonstrated.

 

 

 

Why not discuss it? Why avoid it? If Brahmins did really tamper with it as you say, is the Gita we have today the exact same words (100%) that Sri Krishna gave to Arjuna all those years ago?

 

 

 

Well then you are admitting you really are warriorboy, because it was to him I told to do unbiased research. It's quite sad that you need to come under another name to show support for yourself. Actually I do unbiased research taking in what makes sense from a variety of different sources and things that are hard to believe with a pinch of salt. And I find too many groups of researchers have their own agenda so it's hard to trust many of them. I tend to believe in the historical Krishna and when it comes to all aspects of life, I'm a seeker of truth.

 

 

 

Well I share your views on Brahmins. But like all people in all groups, you've got good and bad. What I don't like is Brahmins who do not live the life or have the character of a brahmin as given in the Gita, but still go around demanding others respect them just because they are born into a Brahmin family.

 

 

 

Well I do think that you're incapable of having a decent discussion, as I've already tried with you. It's as simple as that. If someone brings up another point you disagree with, you jump down their throats! This does not display maturity, but rather insecurity and fanaticism. I can't talk with people like that because most of them are a waste of time.

 

Here you go again with your insecutiry and emotions. Please stop whining like a kid. You came here and got proven wrong and now you're just upset.

 

You say I believe in conspiracy theories, obviously you call this a conspiracy theory because you do not agree with me. Nice and clever "attack" little one. Yet again I have backed up all my sources and as usual, you have none.

 

You said I am paranoid but yet you come and respond to my post day after day only to get TKO'd every single time. You lost this argument a long time ago. Just leave your whining and crying at home and off this board.

 

You accuse me of bieng Warrior boy but when I responded I didn't realize that it was his quote you were talking about. I only read what you wrote and I thuoght that was directed to me. I never come on anyones name. I have this name signed in as always. But nice way to accuse me and try and degrade me personally.

 

At this point I have nothing to prove to you as the proving has been done a long time ago. I do find it rather comical and quite enjoyable to just simply respond to your non sense only to see you get worked up and whine. Maybe this experi will make you into a man.