Ram

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(••if you can't explain what's the value of a name?)

 

If according to you it does not exist therefor no number of explanation will suffice to you .

 

Re

(I will be failing in my duty if I can not defend my ancestors, who suffered and died in the hands of the invaders.

••indians.. or better rajastani, tamil, orissi, kashmiri.... )

 

So we can not call ourself hindus because you say so, and if we call our self as above do you think the mind set of these people will change in any way, would the dharma in any way change?

 

Re

(They preserved and upheld the Dharma against all the odds, but what would you care? They do not exist according to you.

••no they exist... everyone defended his dharma)

 

Who is that everyone known by? we call them you nknow what?

 

Re

(••defending? very simple.. there's not a common dharma for all so called hindus... someone believe that brahman is the absolute and personal god is maya, someone believes the opposite, some one believes that existence at all is illusion, someone worship gods with materialistic purposes, and so on.... this is various religions, not one religion, various dharmas, not one. And everyone thinks that his one is the senatana dharma and the others follow adharmas or dharmas limited in time (=not eternal, not sanatana)

 

You are missing the whole point. Hinduism does not define any one path to reach the supreme, because it recognizes that just as river finds its own path to the sea so does an individual soul by it own free will choose to reach its own goal.

Hinduism is not a religion but it is a way of life based on reincarnation and karma

There are four purashartha, Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha

Bg. 9.15

others who engage in sacrifice by the cultivation of knowledge, worship the supreme lord as the one without a second, as diverse in many, and in the universal form.

Bg. 17.4

Men in mode of goodness worship the Devtas; those in the mode of passion worship the demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits.

Hinduism does not impose any dogma; you are free as an individual soul to choose, according to your desires and propensity.

Re

(••so.. no principles..)

 

When did I say that.

 

Re

(••abolutely not.... my karma and guna make me think one thing and your karma and guna make you think the opposite... is it important in this discussion?)

 

Very much so, you have answered one of your own objection, why do people believe opposite

 

 

 

Re

(••yes.. he has shown the dharma to arjuna, now arjuna is free to follow dharma or adharma.. not that everything that we want to follow is automatically dharma. We are free, fre to behave good or bad)

 

You are missing the point I was making, “do as you wish”the lord said. at the end of the day it is your choice,that is all.

 

Re

(••no my opinion is that hinduism is an artificial brand under someone puts opposite things and that now someone is dangerously pushing for political reasons.)

 

You are accusing with out reference.

 

Re

(We are in kali yuga and i am seeing something that never been in india, religious nationalism and fanaticism... i expect to see an hindu bin laden sustained by the "all paths are the same... if labelled as hinduist")

 

No chance there is no logic in your opinion of bin laden hindu.

How can all path be the same?

If you worship Krishna you go to Krishna, if you worship Ram you go to Ram,If you worship Shiva you go to Shiva, if you worship Durgama you go to her and if you worshiped impersonal brahman you go there.

Hindu may say all worship reach the same supreme, one without a second, but my worship will only reach to whom I desire, with his grace.

 

 

Re

(because if all paths are the same, you have to consider also islam, christianism and buddhism, there's some hinduist schools that are more similar to other religions than to other hinduist religions. Vaishnavas are more close in philosophy to christians than to advaitins, and mayavadis are more similar to buddhist than to other hinduists )

 

Hindus have no problem with any ones faith; problem can only come about if someone try to convert by unfair means.

 

Have you asked any Christians if they are more close to Vaishnavas?

 

How comfortable do you feel sitting on the same table with a Christian eating mother cow?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

[maadhav]

many thanks for the post, dear guest.

 

please pick a user name.

it help communicate better.

without it, any imposter can write on your behalf, and against your view points as a 'guest'.

 

 

 

 

[maadhav]

<< but it is false because there's many dharmas and they are put together with nothing in common >>

 

i do not know why some one chose teh subject of this hread "zxcvbnm". There is no relation of a string if keyborad keys with what we are talking here.

 

now let me respond to teh above quote.

 

- The vedas are the common scriptures all the hindus share.

- Tolerance towards all the vedic sampradayas is something all the hindus have common.

 

- All the Hindus know that theri mother land or theland of their ancestors is Bharatvarsha or now called India.

 

- All the hindus respect - consider holy the mountains and rivers of India.

 

- All the Hindus joufully visit all and any Hindu place of pilgrimage - yatra dhama.

 

- All the Hindus respect Ramayana and mahabharata scriptures

- All the Hindus know that all the 18 puranas, six phiposophies, sutras, upanishads, are all Hindu scriptures - vedic scriptures.

 

- All the Hindus know that the vedic culture grew from India.

 

- All the Hindus should know that aryan is not a race.

any one who lives by a path given in the veidas is an aryan.

 

- All the Hindus understwand that there is a soul in every living being,and that soul is eternal.

 

- Most Hindus are theists, and do not consider atheists as pagans or kafirs - to be hated or persecuted.

 

Why you neglect so much common thigns of the Hindus?

 

Are you afraid that if the Hindus unite,

then that will be some danger for you or your faith?

 

what interet you have in keeping the Hindus disunited?

 

 

[Guest guest]

If according to you it does not exist therefor no number of explanation will suffice to you .

-if i speak it means that i also listen

 

You are missing the whole point. Hinduism does not define any one path to reach the supreme, because it recognizes that just as river finds its own path to the sea so does an individual soul by it own free will choose to reach its own goal.

-but you put inside hinduism many well defined paths and also paths when there's a strong school character, not this spontaneity

 

Hinduism is not a religion but it is a way of life based on reincarnation and karma

-that they are relatively external concepts... many hindu schools are opposite on what's the existence, who is the one who's reincarnating

 

others who engage in sacrifice by the cultivation of knowledge, worship the supreme lord as the one without a second, as diverse in many, and in the universal form.

-many so called hindu schools do not follow this statement.. for example advaitins and mayavadi

 

Men in mode of goodness worship the Devtas; those in the mode of passion worship the demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits.

-that's inside personalist schools... advaitins and mayavadi do not believe like that

 

You are missing the point I was making, “do as you wish”the lord said. at the end of the day it is your choice,that is all.

-yes.. my choice and my wish to follow dharma or adharma.... krsna does not explain bhagavad gita to say "well, now put it in the rubbish bin and act as if i did not exist"

 

How can all path be the same?

-you state that they're the same if you say that they belong to the same religion

 

If you worship Krishna you go to Krishna, if you worship Ram you go to Ram,If you worship Shiva you go to Shiva, if you worship Durgama you go to her and if you worshiped impersonal brahman you go there.

-yes.. many paths=many religions, many names and so on... so giving one name, hinduism (a muslim word), is ficticious and artificial

 

Have you asked any Christians if they are more close to Vaishnavas?

-read some books.. it is very easy

 

How comfortable do you feel sitting on the same table with a Christian eating mother cow?

-very unconfortable, but do you think that vegetarianism is enough to say that vegetarians , or non cow eaters, belaongs to the same religion?

 

The vedas are the common scriptures all the hindus share.

-if my interpretation is opposite by yours i can share everything you want... but we do not belong to the same group

 

Tolerance towards all the vedic sampradayas is something all the hindus have common.

-mmh.. not too much.. the average way now to be tolerant among hindus is to minimize and annihilate differences... so this is not tolerance, it is some conceptions that are gaining strenghth and prevailing

 

All the Hindus know that theri mother land or theland of their ancestors is Bharatvarsha or now called India.

-in vedic times bharatavarsa was the name for the whole world

 

All the Hindus joufully visit all and any Hindu place of pilgrimage - yatra dhama.

-with opposite beliefs and purposes

 

All the Hindus respect Ramayana and mahabharata scriptures

-there's dharmic interpretations and adharmic, asuric opposite ones... the fact that there's an external consideration for sacred book is not so important

 

All the Hindus know that the vedic culture grew from India.

-also australians know it

 

All the Hindus should know that aryan is not a race.

any one who lives by a path given in the veidas is an aryan.

-but there's not agreement on wich is the real vedic path and what is the real meanin of aryan

 

All the Hindus understwand that there is a soul in every living being,and that soul is eternal.

-no.. many schools think that existence is maya or that soul annihilates when merges in brahman together with the body.. they equates individual soul to the body

 

Most Hindus are theists, and do not consider atheists as pagans or kafirs - to be hated or persecuted.

-yes many people is tolerant.. tolerance is not a religion

 

Why you neglect so much common thigns of the Hindus?

-answered

 

Are you afraid that if the Hindus unite,

then that will be some danger for you or your faith?

-kali yuga is going on so this is another unavoidable sign of corruption.... i do not like nationalism and fanaticism, this is a danger for all faiths. I think that indian nationalism is as fanatic and dangerous as islam, you are a little example with your various ideas to pervert varnashrama dharma and guru tattva to make war agaist muslims

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Thank you

I do not think I need to discuss this any more with someone who is hell bent on his view of what Hindu should be.

First he denies that Hinduism exist then he recognize that it is there in many different form with opposite views.

He likes variety of one kind, his kind

Hinduism recognizes variety in different shape and form. Just as in a family you have different people with same views as well as opposite but you do not disown them for having them.

So us Hindus are happy in the knowledge, the knowledge that is derived from Vedas that we seek the same supreme lord in various ways, we share the same basic human values, where tolerance is a vertue, purity and amhinsa is sought after.we all believe in karma and reincarnation, that is why we say Hinduism not a religion but a way of life our karma now will determine our next condition and therefor we are in some ways master of our own destiny considering there are other factors involved.

 

A Hindu will gladly walk in to a place of worship be that may be Muslim or Christian what to speak of other Hindu temple and think of his beautiful worshipable lord, but a Hindu way of life is different from other religion whose life style is a lot different from an average Hindu.

 

So you are welcome to your opinion

 

Was it necessary for you to answer two different people’ post in one. Now I know you do not like variety.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Hindu is a muslim word, given by muslims who had no understanding of the vedic faith. So if you want to unite under the hindu banner..then you are following the muslim example. Our ancestors never did that...why should you?

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

How and when the when the word Hindu came in to use I have no idea, if it has any thing to do with Muslim atall I can not tell, we will have to assume those Arabs could not pronounce S. Do Arabs substitute H for S?

Why would some one describe people by the name of a river? Just does not make sense.

Indu is frequently used word in Vedas, could it be Hindu comes from this word?

Better still Hindi is widely used language. I am no linguist but I am sure it was spoken well before the foreigner came, perhaps a linguist could shade some light here.

Hindu could have been derived from Hindi, which would make more sense.

In any case we have this identification for the inhabitants of Bharat. The word Hindu has become synonymous for the followers of Vedic Dharma. Frankly it does not matter what we are called, as I keep saying ma Ganga is known as Ganges does this change any thing?

Dharma is what we follow Hinduism is just an identification, it does not bother me

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

I do not think I need to discuss this any more with someone who is hell bent on his view of what Hindu should be.

-simply you do not know how to answer

 

First he denies that Hinduism exist then he recognize that it is there in many different form with opposite views.

- i have said that hindu advocates are attempting to reunite disciplines that are opposite, your rethoric ability is not so good

 

He likes variety of one kind, his kind

-why?

 

Hinduism recognizes variety in different shape and form. Just as in a family you have different people with same views as well as opposite but you do not disown them for having them.

-family has something in common, and we know what is it.. but, as demonstrated you cannot say what's in common amongo the groups you want to put in hinduism

 

So us Hindus are happy in the knowledge, the knowledge that is derived from Vedas that we seek the same supreme lord in various ways, we share the same basic human values, where tolerance is a vertue, purity and amhinsa is sought after.we all believe in karma and reincarnation, that is why we say Hinduism not a religion but a way of life our karma now will determine our next condition and therefor we are in some ways master of our own destiny considering there are other factors involved.

-so hindus have a common idea on tolerance, non violence, destiny and reincarnation... religion means "re-union with the absolute".... if we have not a common idea on the absolute there's no common religion

 

but a Hindu way of life is different from other religion whose life style is a lot different from an average Hindu.

-but you are not able to explain this hindu way of life

 

So you are welcome to your opinion

-many thanks, i appreciate yours too

 

Was it necessary for you to answer two different people’ post in one. Now I know you do not like variety.

-nice joke

 

Why would some one describe people by the name of a river? Just does not make sense.

-because they were invaders, they were coming from west and they have identified this people as "everyone beyond (s)hindu river".. not so complicated

 

Indu is frequently used word in Vedas, could it be Hindu comes from this word?

-where indu is used and what does it means?

 

I am no linguist but I am sure it was spoken well before the foreigner came, perhaps a linguist could shade some light here.

-hindi is basically a corruption of sanskrit. like french or italian are from latin (who is another derivation od sanskrit)

 

Hindu could have been derived from Hindi, which would make more sense.

-as english is the language spoken in england, hindi is the language spoken by indians... the original word is the same muslim one (s)hindu

 

In any case we have this identification for the inhabitants of Bharat.

-in vedic times bharata varsa is all the world... in kali yuga it has become a sinonym of the muslim word (sh)india (even if (sh)india has come much more later)

 

The word Hindu has become synonymous for the followers of Vedic Dharma.

-and it makes even less sense because not all the religions who say to have inspiration from vedic literature believe in the same dharma

 

Frankly it does not matter what we are called, as I keep saying ma Ganga is known as Ganges does this change any thing?

-the problem arises if you call ganga the ganga and i call ganga the thames or another calls ganga the mississipi... this is what happens under your hinduist label, many and opposite vedic sanatana dharmas

 

Dharma is what we follow

-wich one?

 

Hinduism is just an identification, it does not bother me

-so why engage in a discussion?

 

 

 

[maadhav]

<< Are you afraid that if the Hindus unite,

then that will be some danger for you or your faith?

 

-kali yuga is going on so this is another unavoidable sign of corruption.... i do not like nationalism and fanaticism, this is a danger for all faiths. I think that indian nationalism is as fanatic and dangerous as islam, you are a little example with your various ideas to pervert varnashrama dharma and guru tattva to make war agaist muslims >>

 

then think again.

a hindu - sanatana dharmi cannot be fanatic.

the history of teh hindus shows this too, in addition to the vedic scriptures.

 

when any asric ideology causes adharma against the hindus in their ownhome land,

you may choose to sit and suffer;

the hindus will not,

not any more.

 

just read "hindu holocaust" post here.

 

what solutions you and your guru propose for the hindus

to protect their dharma and rashtra interests?

 

you have resistance to pick a user name also.

why so?

 

 

[Guest guest]

then think again.

a hindu - sanatana dharmi cannot be fanatic.

-so hindu fanatics are not dharmi.. and obviously not sanatana

 

you may choose to sit and suffer;

the hindus will not,

not any more.

-i choose that terrorism is a police and government problem, not religious problem, if you want to solve it creating a big fake hinduist religion you will make other terrorism

 

what solutions you and your guru propose for the hindus

to protect their dharma and rashtra interests?

-if you are a follower of the dharma you do not try to push gurus to accept your conclusions, dharma is :

 

tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darshinah

 

"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth. "

 

not that you want to hear what you believe it is truth, because you do not know the truth, you are not realized.. so why are you speaking of religion, vedas, dharma, sanatana dharma if you do not follow the basic principles of it?

 

this is the irreligious, adharmic, materialist, fanatic approach, you want to bend religion to your wishes, it does not matter from wich religion you start, koran, gita, bible, sutra the result is the same... fanaticism, terrorism, death, materialism.... muslim bin laden, hindu bin laden, he kills in allah's name you will kill in krsna's name..

 

"you have resistance to pick a user name also.why so?"

-you have a big interest in it, are you a moderator or web master?

[Guest guest]

Why did Ram shoot Vali, an un suspecting victim behind a tree?

Why did Krishna kill Bheeshma,drona,karna using un fair means?

 

Because anything done in defense of dharma is dharma.When the other side follows adharma in war, you need not hesitate to use adharma. Everything becomes fair in war.Prithvi raj chauhan followed dharma when he let off Mohammed ghauri the first time. India still hasnt recovered from that mistake.

Vijayanagar empire defeated bhamini sultans for 3 centuries in many wars.But it did not destroy them and let them off.It lost one war in 1565.Just one war.Just visit humpi today to know what happened then.

Gandhi fasted to force Nehru to give pakistan 55 crore rupees as share from reserve bank.He cited dharma as the reason.pakistan waged a war against India with that mony.

 

Ram and krishna showed the way to fight a war.Prithvi raj chauhan and gandhi did not understand it.

 

Had satrapathi shivaji followed dharma in war with aurangazeb, history would have been different.

 

 

[Guest guest]

these are lilas, if rama and krsna do something apparently irregular (apparently, because at a deep reading and understanding we discover that their actions are also dharmic) it do not means that we have to do like that

 

if we commit sins to stop sins, we are sinners and we go suffering in the jurisdiction of sri yamaraja together with the sinners we were fighting

[maadhav]

<< i choose that terrorism is a police and government problem, not religious problem, >>

 

yes, some think like this, but this is wrong thinking.

it seems you are not a disciple of chanakya pandit

or a kshatriya. kshatriya know better when it is a matter of governing or fighting for dharma and rashtra. if the other three varnas fail to support kshatriyas according to their guna an dkarma, then it is their failure to live by dharma.

 

terrorism is an asymetric warfare. no government alone is able to fight it or win it. everyone needs to fight it accoriding to one's ability, else you loose the war. unity is essential to be effective. a small number of terrorists are able to terrorize the whole populations, how come so? because:

 

- they have accepted an ideology that tells them that all kafirs must be killed or converted.

 

- they are not free thinkers and accept what koran and hadit says.

 

- they have leaders who encourage them to do jihad.

 

- they have money (oil money mostly) to do terrorism.

 

- they are united and resolute in their purpose.

- they are not afraid to die doing jihad (so that they think they will enjoy sex with 72 hauris in islam haven).

 

now, if the kafirs unite and almost every one, or even 30 % of the kafirs unite, then with the same determination and cooperative effort they can wipe out terrorists from their land. it is very easy for them to cause great terror in a community that is dis-united.

 

you are a kafir (or a secert terrorist who has interest to keep the kafirs disuined). so unite all the kafirs against the terrorists. just chanting and dancing cannot make one smart in the strategies of warfare. nore one can undersand the enemy and his strategies. have some respect for kshatriyas and kshatriya dharma.

 

 

[maadhav]

<< he kills in allah's name you will kill in krsna's name..

>>

 

and i say you do it too, else you will not have any freedom to chant and dance. i really believe so. you will not have any temple or altar of your choice even in your home. you and i both are kafirs, and we have a common enemy.

 

guru, sadhu, and shastras are the guides for the vedic people; not just a guru.

 

so, you are free to assume i do not have guru. the reality is different. nether you or your guru offers any soluton to protect the interests of the vedic people. instead you waste a lot of time to oppose who do offer a solution.

 

despite the differences, i respect other gurus, but i must tell the truth as it is even if it sounds disrspectful, as i know it in my bones. all the vedic gurus need to unite against the barbaric ideology. make your mission to wipe out the barbaric ideology from the face of earth.

 

if you ever think that arjun and his army was a group of barbarians then you are missing the message of gita.

(if chaitanya is krishna, then first focus on the message of gita, not on chaitanya charitamrita)

even chaitanya subdued a muslim kazi. did you or your guru subdue a muslim? if not, why waste time arguing with the hindus? they did not invade any country. they did not forcily convert any one, not even a HK.

 

guru devo bhava

matri devo bhava

pitri devo bhava

aacharya devo bhava

 

asato maa sat gamaya

 

satyam param dhi mahi

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

.(-simply you do not know how to answer)

 

Oh no, I simply see no sense on arguing for the sake of it.

 

Re

(- i have said that hindu advocates are attempting to reunite disciplines that are opposite)

 

You have failed to see what Hindus are saying, unity in diversity. Not that every disciplines are same.

Opposite will remain opposite, there is no question of reunites some thing, which is opposite.

Respect others worship

 

Re

(your rethoric ability is not so good)

 

I have no ability, I am sorry if I have offended you in any way

 

Re

(He likes variety of one kind, his kind)

-why?)

 

When we say Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, we say within the definition of this Hindu there are various schools of thoughts some similar some opposite all derived from Vedas, it is not for me to say what suits who?

 

 

Re

(-family has something in common, and we know what is it.. but, as demonstrated you cannot say what's in common amongo the groups you want to put in hinduism)

 

Yes the creator, sorry I did not think I had to spell this out.

 

Re

(-so hindus have a common idea on tolerance, non violence, destiny and reincarnation... religion means "re-union with the absolute".... if we have not a common idea on the absolute there's no common religion)

 

It is nice to have above qualities for the union with the absolute infect we have to transcend those good qualities.

We are not looking for common religion, but a respect for others sadhna, which may very from mine I am not prepared to say mine, is better then yours.

 

Re

(-but you are not able to explain this hindu way of life)

 

Where do you want me start, it begins from birth and ends on funeral pyre, only to start again. Be aware you are responsible for your karma, but if you are wise you strive to get out of this sansar chakra.

 

Re

(So you are welcome to your opinion

-many thanks, i appreciate yours too)

Thanks I do understand your position and I respect that also.

 

 

Re

(-nice joke)

 

You have to laugh at times, otherwise you go mad.

 

 

Re

(-because they were invaders, they were coming from west and they have identified this people as "everyone beyond (s)hindu river".. not so complicated)

 

Wish it was at simple as that, there is no logic in calling people by the name of a river.

Still does not answer how S becomes H unless you tell me these invaders could not say S sound.

 

re

(-where indu is used and what does it means?)

 

In vedas many place, here is one meaning from sanskrit dictionary

In the Brahmanas indu is used only for the moon; but the connexion between the meaning soma juice and moon in the word indu has led to the same two ideas being transferred in classical sanskrit to the word soma.

 

Re

(I am no linguist but I am sure it was spoken well before the foreigner came, perhaps a linguist could shade some light here.

-hindi is basically a corruption of sanskrit. like french or italian are from latin (who is another derivation od sanskrit)

 

This not the answer i was looking from my question, I know Hindi is derived from sanskrit as most languages are but when and what was it called?

 

Re

(-as english is the language spoken in england, hindi is the language spoken by indians... the original word is the same muslim one (s)hindu)

 

Speculation on your part, this language was spoken before the muslim came what was it called.

 

Re

(-in vedic times bharata varsa is all the world... in kali yuga it has become a sinonym of the muslim word (sh)india (even if (sh)india has come much more later)

 

Speculation again. Still it does not change any thing.

 

 

Re

.

(-and it makes even less sense because not all the religions who say to have inspiration from vedic literature believe in the same dharma)

 

Same Dharma, different concept different realization, you may ask why? Because the supreme is UN describable it has to be realized until such time it is just a concept.

 

Re

(-the problem arises if you call ganga the ganga and i call ganga the thames or another calls ganga the mississipi... this is what happens under your hinduist label, many and opposite vedic sanatana dharmas)

Yes it would be silly to call Ganga the Thames but when the names disappear it is only water.

But in case of supreme brahman the one without a second, the wise know him by many names and form.

 

 

Re

(Hinduism is just an identification, it does not bother me

-so why engage in a discussion?)

 

I said the word Hindu does not bother me that do not mean I can not discuss it

Any way you are fine one to talk, according to you it does not exist.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

kshatriya know better when it is a matter of governing or fighting for dharma and rashtra.

-ksatrya means saint, designated by a saint at the service of a saint king... do not pollute this word using it for sudras fighting against sudras

 

terrorism is an asymetric warfare. no government alone is able to fight it or win it.

-ksatrya is saint warrior fighting under a saint government, like arjuna under the guidance of yudistira

 

everyone needs to fight it accoriding to one's ability

-this is irreligious... classes are four not one

 

you are a kafir (or a secert terrorist who has interest to keep the kafirs disuined).

_you are acting like a terrorist, if anyone has an opinion difference he's an enemy

 

so unite all the kafirs against the terrorists. just chanting and dancing cannot make one smart in the strategies of warfare.

-this is your legitimate opinion, you are free to think like that, but not pose as religious thinker, hindu advocate, vaishnava and so on... because you are negating prayer and praising god, putting him after a police problem, and demonstrating atheism if you believe that you cannot solve problems through god's mercy

 

have some respect for kshatriyas and kshatriya dharma.

-you must have some respect not using this sacred word and applying them to an anarchist, irreligious and terrorist behaviour

[Guest guest]

.(-simply you do not know how to answer)

Oh no, I simply see no sense on arguing for the sake of it.

-so do not argue, where's the problem?

 

You have failed to see what Hindus are saying, unity in diversity

-diversity is very easy to see, but where's the unity?

 

Opposite will remain opposite, there is no question of reunites some thing, which is opposite.

-so why you want to unite?

 

Respect others worship

-i am doing it not being agree with an indiscriminate union

 

I have no ability, I am sorry if I have offended you in any way

-oh, no offence, we are discussing

 

When we say Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, we say within the definition of this Hindu there are various schools of thoughts some similar some opposite all derived from Vedas,

-yes, but where's a common comprehension of vedas to say that it is a real school of thought, to say that some people have something real in common to call them under the same name? show some reality... computer users have in common the use of comuter, musicians have in common that they make music, cooks have in common that they prepare food.... what do hindus have in common? ony that some invaders have said: "all people beyond the (s-h)indu river are (s-h)indians... like if an european says "all people beyond istanbul are asians"

 

We are not looking for common religion, but a respect for others sadhna, which may very from mine I am not prepared to say mine, is better then yours.

-i am sure you are highly respectiful of others, but my respect is also in the fact that i do not like to mix what is not to be mixed and if it is mixed it is done against any logic or dharma...... only as a reaction to others adharmas, and adharma against adharma generates adharma

 

Wish it was at simple as that, there is no logic in calling people by the name of a river.

-but they were invedars, they were not interested in being historically or geographically correct... they saw a land and they gave a name

 

Still does not answer how S becomes H unless you tell me these invaders could not say S sound.

-yes, in that position they said not sindhu but hindu... it is a phenomenon well known also in ancient grecian

 

classical sanskrit to the word soma.

-so it has nothing to do with our "hindu"

 

I know Hindi is derived from sanskrit as most languages are but when and what was it called?

-as other kali yuga corruptions it has been gradually, also for latin, grecian and so on

 

Speculation on your part, this language was spoken before the muslim came what was it called.

-no problem, maybe sindhu river is called in this way also in vedic(sanskrit) times, they could have corrupted a sanskrit word and not properly a hindi word, or the opposite. Hindi is called hindi after that muslim invaders have callet this land (s-h)india

 

Speculation again. Still it does not change any thing.

-you have said that bharata varsa and india are the same thing, and it is not true... even many characthers from mahabharata do not come from "modern india", gandhari for example is from afganistan

 

Because the supreme is UN describable it has to be realized until such time it is just a concept.

-so you admit that there's not a common idea.. so why reunite people with no common idea?

 

Yes it would be silly to call Ganga the Thames but when the names disappear it is only water.

-so call it water, not ganga, do not attempt to make artificial reunions

 

But in case of supreme brahman the one without a second, the wise know him by many names and form.

-there's a huge part of what you are calling hindus that does not believe in this idea.. many believe that brahman is second to siva or vishnu, may believe that also brahman is maya and the non existence is the ultimate reality

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

guru, sadhu, and shastras are the guides for the vedic people; not just a guru.

-yes.. but not sadhu and shastra interpreted by you against guru

 

nether you or your guru offers any soluton to protect the interests of the vedic people. instead you waste a lot of time to oppose who do offer a solution.

-adharmic solution.. useless... but my main concern is that you have not to call it dharmic if you do it against dharma. if you say "this is my solution" i have no objections, if you say "this is the dharmic solution" i speak

 

all the vedic gurus need to unite against the barbaric ideology. make your mission to wipe out the barbaric ideology from the face of earth.

-so you want to teach to gurus instead to learn from them, this is licit, you have the freedom... but this is irreligious, so do not speak of religion

 

if you ever think that arjun and his army was a group of barbarians then you are missing the message of gita.

-you are thinking in this way if you equates the kuruksetra situation to the one of modern india that are you speaking of

 

(if chaitanya is krishna, then first focus on the message of gita, not on chaitanya charitamrita)

-this is adharmic, sinful and undemonstrated... you have to focus both, if you do not respect avataras, you do not respect neither the source of avataras

 

even chaitanya subdued a muslim kazi.

-with samkirtan and explanations

 

did you or your guru subdue a muslim?

-are you discussing spiritual sanatana dharma leaders? so what sanatana dharmi you are? what kind of ksatrya you are? my request is to go on as you want with your proposals but not call yourself a religious... hindu, dharmi or whatever

 

as muslim have corrupted his religion being without pure spiritual masters, the tendence is to corrupt also dharma applying it in a materialist way

 

so killers and murderers under allah's name against killers and murderers under ram's name

 

where's the difference?

 

 

[maadhav]

<< even chaitanya subdued a muslim kazi.

-with samkirtan and explanations >>

 

no, but a large mass of united followers of chaitanya

coming to kazi's place with burning flaming torches in their hands subdued the kazi.

this pissed off the kazi, not the sankirtan.

the demand to kazi was that "we have the right to do sankirtan."

 

no muslim ever has been subdued by sankirtan or chanting. no one ever will. if you do not belive this, then go to some talibanis and try to subdue them by sankirtan. (dont do it, you may not come alive.) only the might, in one form or another is something the barabrians respect.

 

<< so killers and murderers under allah's name against killers and murderers under ram's name

 

where's the difference? >>

 

it seems you fail to understand the difference between the armies of kauravas and that of pandavas.

 

talk first to the aggressor invaders, not the victims of the invaders.

 

you have missed to notice my first choice - that of removing the barbaric ideology from the vedic homeland.

 

it is ok if you fail to understand my effort.

some do, and will.

or may be, you will understand some later time/life.

you can say the same for me.

 

have a nice day.

subdue a muslim, or, inspire him to give up islam (first).

 

 

[Guest guest]

no, but a large mass of united followers of chaitanya

coming to kazi's place with burning flaming torches in their hands subdued the kazi.

-false, read chaitanya charitamrita.... they had also some mrdangas broken by soldiers.. gauranga mahaprabhu went to the kazi calling him uncle and demostrated that samkirtan was supported by koran too.

Kazi had nothing against samkirtan, he was asked by "hindu" caste brahmins to stop it, because they could'nt bear that god's consciousness was given not vonsidering caste system. They were in this circumstance the real envious, not muslims. In all chaitanya charitamrita if there's opposition is from caste brahmins.

Read the books

 

 

talk first to the aggressor invaders, not the victims of the invaders.

- invaders is people dead from hundreds of years, now in india someone takes birth as muslim, someone as "hindu", someone as christian and so on.. who's invading?

 

you have missed to notice my first choice - that of removing the barbaric ideology from the vedic homeland.

-the barbaric ideology is terrorism and religious fanaticism, not islam or vedas... who behaves as a terrorist is a problem, we do not care wich god he uses as a pretext or justification

 

"have a nice day.

subdue a muslim,"

-subdue? is this your mentality?

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(-diversity is very easy to see, but where's the unity?)

 

It is there but it want remain so, if we keep on highlighting the differences.

 

 

Re

(-so why you want to unite?)

 

So that you can worship in peace believing in our faith is one thing living in harmony is another. Even in same sampradaya you will have differences, if you do not cooperate you will have problems.

 

Re

(-i am doing it not being agree with an indiscriminate union)

 

No one is asking you to compromise your faith

 

 

 

Re

(-yes, but where's a common comprehension of vedas to say that it is a real school of thought, to say that some people have something real in common to call them under the same name?)

 

I do not fully understand your statement or question. Anyway I try the best what I understand. Those who studied Vedas and derived different concept, or have different perception or follow different yoga system can be classed under the same umbrella. Nothing wrong with that, since all of them are getting information from the same source.

 

Re

(show some reality... computer users have in common the use of comuter, musicians have in common that they make music, cooks have in common that they prepare food.... )

 

I hope you are not suggesting all music is the same or cooks prepare the same food?

Variety is the name of the game, do not knock it.

 

 

Re

(what do hindus have in common?)

 

Same shastra, same Devi and Devas same way of life all believe in Karma Very important.all go on pilgrimage we worship the sun the moon, the rivers the mountains the plants. We call earth the mother; we worship the cow as mother. Biggest gathering of pilgrimage on Kumbh mela, from a very old time, Hindus of different shape and size, do you want me to go on?

 

 

 

Re

(ony that some invaders have said: "all people beyond the (s-h)indu river are (s-h)indians... like if an european says "all people beyond istanbul are asians")

 

Wrong analogy by your logic European should have said (s-h) Istanbul.

 

 

Re

(-i am sure you are highly respectiful of others, but my respect is also in the fact that i do not like to mix what is not to be mixed and if it is mixed it is done against any logic or dharma...... only as a reaction to others adharmas, and adharma against adharma generates adharma)

 

We are going round in circle here. If you are saying we should not unite against Adharma then you are wrong. We fail miserably if do not stand against atatayinah. The history is the witness, if Muslim aggressor were dealt correctly then they would not have had chance to attack us again and again we showed them mercy and we paid for it.

Brits were only able to rule us by divide and rule.

Sure violence begets violence. Only when all the avenues were exhausted only then the maha bharat war was started.

Actualy Adharma generates adharma and if you do not stand against that, it will over run you , just as forest fire will destroy any thing in its way

 

Re

(-but they were invedars, they were not interested in being historically or geographically correct... they saw a land and they gave a name)

 

Pure speculation

 

Re

(-yes, in that position they said not sindhu but hindu... it is a phenomenon well known also in ancient grecian)

 

I have no knowledge of this

Re

(classical sanskrit to the word soma.

-so it has nothing to do with our "hindu")

 

I can also say River Sindhu has nothing to do with people

 

Check out this site, it refutes the the Hindu theory as we think we know

www.geocities.com/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.

Re

(-as other kali yuga corruptions it has been gradually, also for latin, grecian and so on)

Hindi was spoken well before the muslim arrived.

 

 

Re

(-no problem, maybe sindhu river is called in this way also in vedic(sanskrit) times, they could have corrupted a sanskrit word and not properly a hindi word, or the opposite. Hindi is called hindi after that muslim invaders have callet this land (s-h)india)

 

 

 

Illogical if they could not pronounce S and make it in to H. then why would they change H in to I?

 

 

Re.

(-you have said that bharata varsa and india are the same thing, and it is not true... even many characthers from mahabharata do not come from "modern india", gandhari for example is from afganistan)

 

Modern India is a lot different from Bharat. King Pariksit was the last Charavati Raja he ruled the whole world from Hastinapur. What is left of India is still Bharat

 

 

RE

(-so call it water, not ganga, do not attempt to make artificial reunions)

 

It is not artificial union, although I accept Ganga is Ganga and Thames is Thames but in reality both the river is mass of water and both of them flow in to big sea.

 

 

Re

(-there's a huge part of what you are calling hindus that does not believe in this idea.. many believe that brahman is second to siva or vishnu, may believe that also brahman is maya and the non existence is the ultimate reality)

 

Virtues, Laws Moral within these concepts are mainly the same. Concepts are still concepts. Truths are only known after realization.

 

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.

He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.

He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.

He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.

The only proof of his existence is union with him.

He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)

 

Krishna says in Bg.40

Son of Pratha, person engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or the world beyond; one who does good , my friend never goes to degradation.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(-diversity is very easy to see, but where's the unity?)

 

It is there but it want remain so, if we keep on highlighting the differences.

 

 

Re

(-so why you want to unite?)

 

So that you can worship in peace believing in our faith is one thing living in harmony is another. Even in same sampradaya you will have differences, if you do not cooperate you will have problems.

 

Re

(-i am doing it not being agree with an indiscriminate union)

 

No one is asking you to compromise your faith

 

 

 

Re

(-yes, but where's a common comprehension of vedas to say that it is a real school of thought, to say that some people have something real in common to call them under the same name?)

 

I do not fully understand your statement or question. Anyway I try the best what I understand. Those who studied Vedas and derived different concept, or have different perception or follow different yoga system can be classed under the same umbrella. Nothing wrong with that, since all of them are getting information from the same source.

 

Re

(show some reality... computer users have in common the use of comuter, musicians have in common that they make music, cooks have in common that they prepare food.... )

 

I hope you are not suggesting all music is the same or cooks prepare the same food?

Variety is the name of the game, do not knock it.

 

 

Re

(what do hindus have in common?)

 

Same shastra, same Devi and Devas same way of life all believe in Karma Very important.all go on pilgrimage we worship the sun the moon, the rivers the mountains the plants. We call earth the mother; we worship the cow as mother. Biggest gathering of pilgrimage on Kumbh mela, from a very old time, Hindus of different shape and size, do you want me to go on?

 

 

 

Re

(ony that some invaders have said: "all people beyond the (s-h)indu river are (s-h)indians... like if an european says "all people beyond istanbul are asians")

 

Wrong analogy by your logic European should have said (s-h) Istanbul.

 

 

Re

(-i am sure you are highly respectiful of others, but my respect is also in the fact that i do not like to mix what is not to be mixed and if it is mixed it is done against any logic or dharma...... only as a reaction to others adharmas, and adharma against adharma generates adharma)

 

We are going round in circle here. If you are saying we should not unite against Adharma then you are wrong. We fail miserably if do not stand against atatayinah. The history is the witness, if Muslim aggressor were dealt correctly then they would not have had chance to attack us again and again we showed them mercy and we paid for it.

Brits were only able to rule us by divide and rule.

Sure violence begets violence. Only when all the avenues were exhausted only then the maha bharat war was started.

Actualy Adharma generates adharma and if you do not stand against that, it will over run you , just as forest fire will destroy any thing in its way

 

Re

(-but they were invedars, they were not interested in being historically or geographically correct... they saw a land and they gave a name)

 

Pure speculation

 

Re

(-yes, in that position they said not sindhu but hindu... it is a phenomenon well known also in ancient grecian)

 

I have no knowledge of this

Re

(classical sanskrit to the word soma.

-so it has nothing to do with our "hindu")

 

I can also say River Sindhu has nothing to do with people

 

Check out this site, it refutes the the Hindu theory as we think we know

www.geocities.com/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.

Re

(-as other kali yuga corruptions it has been gradually, also for latin, grecian and so on)

Hindi was spoken well before the muslim arrived.

 

 

Re

(-no problem, maybe sindhu river is called in this way also in vedic(sanskrit) times, they could have corrupted a sanskrit word and not properly a hindi word, or the opposite. Hindi is called hindi after that muslim invaders have callet this land (s-h)india)

 

 

 

Illogical if they could not pronounce S and make it in to H. then why would they change H in to I?

 

 

Re.

(-you have said that bharata varsa and india are the same thing, and it is not true... even many characthers from mahabharata do not come from "modern india", gandhari for example is from afganistan)

 

Modern India is a lot different from Bharat. King Pariksit was the last Charavati Raja he ruled the whole world from Hastinapur. What is left of India is still Bharat

 

 

RE

(-so call it water, not ganga, do not attempt to make artificial reunions)

 

It is not artificial union, although I accept Ganga is Ganga and Thames is Thames but in reality both the river is mass of water and both of them flow in to big sea.

 

 

Re

(-there's a huge part of what you are calling hindus that does not believe in this idea.. many believe that brahman is second to siva or vishnu, may believe that also brahman is maya and the non existence is the ultimate reality)

 

Virtues, Laws Moral within these concepts are mainly the same. Concepts are still concepts. Truths are only known after realization.

 

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.

He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.

He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.

He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.

The only proof of his existence is union with him.

He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)

 

Krishna says in Bg.40

Son of Pratha, person engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or the world beyond; one who does good , my friend never goes to degradation.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

It is there but it want remain so, if we keep on highlighting the differences.

--difference does not hurt

 

So that you can worship in peace believing in our faith is one thing living in harmony is another

-this does not require to create a fake religion to reunite opposite beliefs

 

No one is asking you to compromise your faith

-if you put me in a religion together with other cultures thinking in an opposite way, some one has to make compromises to find some kind of common principles

 

Those who studied Vedas and derived different concept, or have different perception or follow different yoga system can be classed under the same umbrella. Nothing wrong with that, since all of them are getting information from the same source.

-the fact that me and you can read the same newspaper does not put ourselves together in a group if we interprete the news in opposite ways

 

I hope you are not suggesting all music is the same or cooks prepare the same food?

Variety is the name of the game, do not knock it.

-variety is nice, my concern is that you want to say that a musician is a cook and a cook is a musician to force them in the same group

 

do you want me to go on?

-it is not important because all that external activities are done by religious groups labelled as hinduism with opposite purposes and goals, and the important thing is not the apparence or the surface

 

Wrong analogy by your logic European should have said (s-h) Istanbul.

••this is not to explain the linguistic origin of the thing, it is to explain the thinking of a conqueror, invader... when romans invaded grecia, or palestine, or spain they do not cared of the peoples living in these lands.. they where interested in conquer from there (a river, a mountain, a lake), to there (the same)

 

it is like if hinduism is created bymuslims when they said... "from here there's (sh)india"

 

 

If you are saying we should not unite against Adharma then you are wrong

--unity is great, what is not great is to use religion (and religious fanaticism) bending it for political purposes

 

(-but they were invedars, they were not interested in being historically or geographically correct... they saw a land and they gave a name)

Pure speculation

-it is accepted by everyone, also from hinduist advocates and fanatics

 

(-yes, in that position they said not sindhu but hindu... it is a phenomenon well known also in ancient grecian)

I have no knowledge of this

--so why speak?

 

(classical sanskrit to the word soma.

-so it has nothing to do with our "hindu")

I can also say River Sindhu has nothing to do with people

--it is your freedom, but you are lonely thinking like that

 

(-as other kali yuga corruptions it has been gradually, also for latin, grecian and so on)

Hindi was spoken well before the muslim arrived.

--call it as you want, call it neo sanskrit, call it hindi or whatever, the definition india, hindu, hindi exist after muslim advent... the original name of (sh)india is bharatavarsa and his original language is devanagari

 

Illogical if they could not pronounce S and make it in to H. then why would they change H in to I?

--are you joking?

 

Modern India is a lot different from Bharat. King Pariksit was the last Charavati Raja he ruled the whole world from Hastinapur.

-and it confirm what i am saying, we are so attached by boudaies and names given by the muslim "enemies"

 

It is not artificial union, although I accept Ganga is Ganga and Thames is Thames but in reality both the river is mass of water and both of them flow in to big sea.

-yes.. unity and difference, go in haridwar or rsikesh and ask where you can bathe in thames

 

Concepts are still concepts.

--religion s made by concepts

 

Truths are only known after realization.

-so what's the use to make a religion if the truth is after realization? are you making a religion on lies? religion is about truth

 

about your quoting of upanishad and gita, you will find in india, in the same city or even in close temples brahmins, students, scholars, philosopher who interprete these scriptures in opposite ways, and it is nice and licit... but where's the comon religion? where's the need to compromise faiths to put them under the same brand?

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

If you take Hinduism as religion,we will never be able to agree on anything.Hindu is not defined,it recognizes different groups with different pratices.

 

i get back to your post in detail when i have time.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh Jai Ganesh Jai Ganesh deva, Mata jena Parvati ne Pita Shanker Deva.

 

Re

(--difference does not hurt)

Yes like in a family or in nation like Hindu (India, Maha Bharat) call it what you may there will be differences but you still remain united.

 

Re

(-this does not require to create a fake religion to reunite opposite beliefs)

 

Who is creating a new religion, you are going round in circle, no one here is saying anything about new religion, and you are not listening. Different sadhna existed before, is existing now and I dare say it will exist in future, this is all derived from Vedas if people identify this as Hinduism what is wrong with that? People use this for various reasons, for convenience, even those, who say they have got nothing to do with Hindu, they use it.

 

Re

( -if you put me in a religion together with other cultures thinking in an opposite way, some one has to make compromises to find some kind of common principles)

 

No one putting you in a religion you do not want.

 

Re

(-the fact that me and you can read the same newspaper does not put ourselves together in a group if we interprete the news in opposite ways)

 

It does not matter if we understand opposite, the fact that we are reading the Gita people will say we are following Krishna.

 

Re

(-variety is nice, my concern is that you want to say that a musician is a cook and a cook is a musician to force them in the same group)

 

Your concern is baseless, not even a child will think like that.

 

Re

(-it is not important because all that external activities are done by religious groups labelled as hinduism with opposite purposes and goals, and the important thing is not the apparence or the surface)

 

So Devi Devtas are not important, Going to pilgrimage is not important, going to kumbh mela is not important? May be not for you, this practice we have done since time memorial

 

Re

(••this is not to explain the linguistic origin of the thing, it is to explain the thinking of a conqueror, invader... when romans invaded grecia, or palestine, or spain they do not cared of the peoples living in these lands.. they where interested in conquer from there (a river, a mountain, a lake), to there (the same)

 

We all know what invaders do.

But still there is no sense in what you are saying.

 

Re

(it is like if hinduism is created bymuslims when they said... "from here there's (sh)india"0)

 

No sir Hinduism was not created by Muslim, they tried there best to destroy it.

If they called (sh)India”O is pure speculation

 

 

Re

( --unity is great, what is not great is to use religion (and religious fanaticism) bending it for political purposes)

 

Adharma is adarhma in any shape, to fight against it, is Dharma, no if and buts.

 

re

(-it is accepted by everyone, also from hinduist advocates and fanatics)

 

So is the theory of evolution, accepted millions does this mean I have to accept it?

 

(-yes, in that position they said not sindhu but hindu... it is a phenomenon well known also in ancient grecian)

I have no knowledge of this

--so why speak?)

 

wow!

 

Re

(--it is your freedom, but you are lonely thinking like that)

 

I do not feel lonely. We have been conditioned to accept history written by west for far too long, it is about time we woke up. And if this sound fanatics to you then tough.

As a non violent nation even a small reaction against adharma is perceived to be a major event.

 

Re

(-as other kali yuga corruptions it has been gradually, also for latin, grecian and so on)

Hindi was spoken well before the muslim arrived.

--call it as you want, call it neo sanskrit, call it hindi or whatever, the definition india, hindu, hindi exist after muslim advent... the original name of (sh)india is bharatavarsa and his original language is devanagari)

 

Technically bharatvarsa came later I will not argue about it, like you are, for me the new names do not change the contents.

Re

(--are you joking?)

 

What is so funny?

 

 

Re

(-and it confirm what i am saying, we are so attached by boudaies and names given by the muslim "enemies")

 

When did muslim become your enemy?

 

 

Re

(-yes.. unity and difference, go in haridwar or rsikesh and ask where you can bathe in thames)

 

I am not as foolish as you think.

 

 

Re

(--religion s made by concepts)

 

Who is arguing, but you follow the Dharma.

 

Re

(-so what's the use to make a religion if the truth is after realization? are you making a religion on lies? religion is about truth)

 

Truth is revealed. If I tell you how beautiful or gigantic the Himalayas are you can only wonder about it, only when you go there you see the beauty. Truth is to be realized.

 

Re

(about your quoting of upanishad and gita, you will find in india, in the same city or even in close temples brahmins, students, scholars, philosopher who interprete these scriptures in opposite ways, and it is nice and licit... but where's the comon religion? where's the need to compromise faiths to put them under the same brand?)

 

Why should there be compete agreement there is bound to be differences. I might see the bottle half empty you might see as half full.

Rainbow is beautiful where is the common colors in it?

Follow your Dharma no one is asking you to change your faith.

 

Jai Shree Krishna