-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Acknowledging Impositions & Understanding How to Counter Them: Anti-Hindu Encroachments
- Thread starter Poeticus
- Start date
Some people think so. Some don't.
Apparently, this story of Brahma doing all those activities comes from the bogus Sarasvati Purana.
Philomath
Sadhaka
Of course it's not real. But the Muslim person who brought it up was insisting that all Hindus should believe in it, because in his world, scripture is infallible. So he was projecting that because scripture is infallible to Muslims, so should it be to Hindus.
He was projecting one paradigm onto another. It's as illogical as saying, 'because I picked a plant that was poisonous, if you pick a plant, it will also be poisonous'.
I know of very few Hindus (none personally, to be exact) that think our scriptures are infallible.
Oh....ok thanks for clearing that up.
arpankhandelwal
Hindu
Poeticus, thanks for sharing your conversation.
You may ask the guy that before getting married to Maa Saraswati, Lord Brahma was never married to anyone, then how can you call Maa Saraswati as daughter of Lord Brahma ?? Maa Saraswati is known as one of the creatures of lord Brahma (Not by genetic male-female relationship). Suppose that if someone creates something (non genetically) and gets married to his creature then will it be called marrying to his daughter ??
__________________
Jai Shree Krishna.
1. Even if someone is the most sinful of all sinners, he can also cross the ocean of sins by situating in the boat of transcendental knowledge. (Bhagwad Gita - 4.36)
2. Truly there is in this world nothing so purifying as transcendental knowledge.-(Bhagwad Gita [4.38])
3. As the blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of transcendental knowledge burn to ashes all activities for the material desire.(Bhagwad Gita - 4.37)
4. But the man who is without knowledge, who is ignorant, who is faithless and of a doubting nature perishes. For him there is neither this world, nor next, nor happiness either. -(Bhagwad Gita [4.40])
5. Therefore the doubts which have arisen in your heart out of ignorance should be slashed by the sword of transcendental knowledge and taking shelter in Yog, stand up, O Bharat.-(Bhagwad Gita [4.42]
You may ask the guy that before getting married to Maa Saraswati, Lord Brahma was never married to anyone, then how can you call Maa Saraswati as daughter of Lord Brahma ?? Maa Saraswati is known as one of the creatures of lord Brahma (Not by genetic male-female relationship). Suppose that if someone creates something (non genetically) and gets married to his creature then will it be called marrying to his daughter ??
__________________
Jai Shree Krishna.
1. Even if someone is the most sinful of all sinners, he can also cross the ocean of sins by situating in the boat of transcendental knowledge. (Bhagwad Gita - 4.36)
2. Truly there is in this world nothing so purifying as transcendental knowledge.-(Bhagwad Gita [4.38])
3. As the blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of transcendental knowledge burn to ashes all activities for the material desire.(Bhagwad Gita - 4.37)
4. But the man who is without knowledge, who is ignorant, who is faithless and of a doubting nature perishes. For him there is neither this world, nor next, nor happiness either. -(Bhagwad Gita [4.40])
5. Therefore the doubts which have arisen in your heart out of ignorance should be slashed by the sword of transcendental knowledge and taking shelter in Yog, stand up, O Bharat.-(Bhagwad Gita [4.42]
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"A possible connection between Prajapati (and related figures in Indian tradition) and the Prōtogonos (Greek: Πρωτογόνος of the Greek Orphic tradition has been made by several scholars.
It has been argued that the name of /PRA-JĀ[N]-pati/ ('progeny-potentate') is etymologically equivalent to that of the oracular god at Kolophōn (according to Makrobios), namely /prōtogonos/.
According to Damascius, Prōtogonos (also known as Phanēs) had four heads, those of "a Serpent (Drakōn)... and a bull; a man, and a god," while in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa Brahmā - identified with Prajapati in several texts - is likewise reckoned as 4-headed [one head each having produced deva-s (gods), ṛṣi-s (sages), pitṛ-s (ancestors), and nara-s (humans)]."
Prajapati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Phanes (Ancient Greek: Φάνης, or Protogonos (Greek: Πρωτογόνος, "First-born"), was the mystic primeval deity of procreation and the generation of new life, who was introduced into Greek mythology by the Orphic tradition; other names for this Classical Greek Orphic concept included Ericapaeus (Ἠρικαπαῖος or Ἠρικεπαῖος "power") and Metis ("thought").
In these myths Phanes is often equated with Eros and Mithras and has been depicted as a deity emerging from a cosmic egg, entwined with a serpent. He had a helmet and had broad, golden wings. The Orphic cosmogony is bizarre, and quite unlike the creation sagas offered by Homer and Hesiod. Scholars have suggested that Orphism is "un-Greek" even "Asiatic" in conception, because of its inherent dualism. Time, who was also called Aion, created the silver egg of the universe, out of this egg burst out the first-born, Phanes, who was also called Dionysus. Phanes was a uroboric male-female deity of light and goodness, whose name means "to bring light" or "to shine"; a first-born god of light who emerges from a void or a watery abyss and gives birth to the universe.
Many threads of earlier myths are apparent in the new tradition. Phanes was believed to have been hatched from the World-Egg of Chronos (Time) and Ananke (Necessity or Fate) or Nyx in the black bird form and wind. His older wife Nyx (Night) called him Protogenus. As she created nighttime, he created daytime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanes_(mythology)
I remember reading in SrimadBhagatham how the Prajapati (don't remember who it was), split to create the first women and then proceeded to populate the Eath.
Rohini (Aldebaran - Alpha Tauri) is close to Orion and one of the brightest stars in the night sky.
of the Greek Orphic tradition has been made by several scholars.It has been argued that the name of /PRA-JĀ[N]-pati/ ('progeny-potentate') is etymologically equivalent to that of the oracular god at Kolophōn (according to Makrobios), namely /prōtogonos/.
According to Damascius, Prōtogonos (also known as Phanēs) had four heads, those of "a Serpent (Drakōn)... and a bull; a man, and a god," while in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa Brahmā - identified with Prajapati in several texts - is likewise reckoned as 4-headed [one head each having produced deva-s (gods), ṛṣi-s (sages), pitṛ-s (ancestors), and nara-s (humans)]."
Prajapati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Phanes (Ancient Greek: Φάνης
, or Protogonos (Greek: Πρωτογόνος, "First-born"), was the mystic primeval deity of procreation and the generation of new life, who was introduced into Greek mythology by the Orphic tradition; other names for this Classical Greek Orphic concept included Ericapaeus (Ἠρικαπαῖος or Ἠρικεπαῖος "power") and Metis ("thought").In these myths Phanes is often equated with Eros and Mithras and has been depicted as a deity emerging from a cosmic egg, entwined with a serpent. He had a helmet and had broad, golden wings. The Orphic cosmogony is bizarre, and quite unlike the creation sagas offered by Homer and Hesiod. Scholars have suggested that Orphism is "un-Greek" even "Asiatic" in conception, because of its inherent dualism. Time, who was also called Aion, created the silver egg of the universe, out of this egg burst out the first-born, Phanes, who was also called Dionysus. Phanes was a uroboric male-female deity of light and goodness, whose name means "to bring light" or "to shine"; a first-born god of light who emerges from a void or a watery abyss and gives birth to the universe.
Many threads of earlier myths are apparent in the new tradition. Phanes was believed to have been hatched from the World-Egg of Chronos (Time) and Ananke (Necessity or Fate) or Nyx in the black bird form and wind. His older wife Nyx (Night) called him Protogenus. As she created nighttime, he created daytime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanes_(mythology)
I remember reading in SrimadBhagatham how the Prajapati (don't remember who it was), split to create the first women and then proceeded to populate the Eath.
Rohini (Aldebaran - Alpha Tauri) is close to Orion and one of the brightest stars in the night sky.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I do not happen to meet many non-Hindus here, Sikhs are OK. Generally they are brotherly to Hindus. My family people or me have no hesitation in visiting Gurudwras. My son has sung 'shabads' at Gurudwara Harmandir Sahib in Amritsar and Gurudwara Bangla Sahib in Delhi. If I meet a secessionist Sikh, then I have many arguments up my sleeve. When in job, I had a Christian close friend, a Keralite. We used to discuss many things without any rancor. I used to think that if I were a Prime Minister, I would make him a Minister for Social Welfare. Basically, Indians hardly ever fight over religion among friends and acquaintances. What is yours is yours, what is mine is mine.
Surat Al-Kāfirūn (The Disbelievers) - سورة الكافرون
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshipers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshiper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshipers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
I am a nationalist and a staunch Hindu, though of a type. I research to give the best arguments.
Surat Al-Kāfirūn (The Disbelievers) - سورة الكافرون
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshipers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshiper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshipers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
I am a nationalist and a staunch Hindu, though of a type. I research to give the best arguments.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Nice rebuttal OP but that story about Brahma is real?
It doesn't matter if it is real or not. The point is that it is not a revelation, nor a doctrinal truth. Neither is it credal for it to be believed in. In other words, it is not faith-identifying nor faith-defining. It is not centralistic. Therefore, it's not about being
. Instead, it's about acknowledging impositions and understanding how to counter them.
It doesn't matter if it is real or not. The point is that it is not a revelation, nor a doctrinal truth. Neither is it credal for it to be believed in. In other words, it is not faith-identifying nor faith-defining. It is not centralistic. Therefore, it's not about being
Amazing how quickly topics get derailed.
On occasion, and actually in the temple I attend, I do strike up conversations. I'm often totally surprised at what comes out of 'Hindu' minds regarding what we believe. We can never underestimate the long term impact of such impositions. It's a cancer ... slow but sure change. For example, Yesterday I found out exactly why a family I've been observing for a couple of years always looks so confused, especially the kids. Turns out they attend church one week and temple the next. Now I know why those kids always look so hesitant, unlike some of the wholehearted little bhaktars I've admired.
Fireside_Hindu
Jai Lakshmi Maa
I handle this sort of thing by being brutally honest. I'm still learning, so I have no idea if a story like that is even true. And even if it were, it doesn't really matter, because no modern Hindu in their right mind looks at that and goes, "Oh, yeah, totally. We're all about that."
People like to dig up the worst parts of any faith and say, "SEE! HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS FILTH?"
I shrug my shoulders and just answer honestly. "I don't." I think the point made above is pretty much why. Hindus don't consider their scriptures infallible. And different categories of scripture serve different purposes. I think lots of other religions have a problem with that because they can't imagine a system of ethics that relies on examining morals from a case by case basis taken from a wider view, without the cut and dry guidance of a set of rules written down a long time ago.
I've never had anyone confront me in the way the OP was confronted, but if I were I would have to confess that I'm no scholar. I go by my experience of Hinduism, the examples set up other Hindus and the vast majority of what I have learned about the "fundamentals" of Dharma. When you start getting in to Puranic stories and really nitty gritty details you have to look at things in context first. But the bottom line is that people who bring stuff like that up, while ignoring the wider picture, aren't interested in understanding Hinduism. The want to vilify it to validate their own beliefs because their insecurity keeps them from being confident in their own faith without demonizing others.
IN short, I'd say explain your stance firmly but calmly, then walk away and ignore if it starts getting heated. There's no point in trying to win an argument with someone who simply enjoys arguing. You'll be there all day.
:camp:
People like to dig up the worst parts of any faith and say, "SEE! HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS FILTH?"
I shrug my shoulders and just answer honestly. "I don't." I think the point made above is pretty much why. Hindus don't consider their scriptures infallible. And different categories of scripture serve different purposes. I think lots of other religions have a problem with that because they can't imagine a system of ethics that relies on examining morals from a case by case basis taken from a wider view, without the cut and dry guidance of a set of rules written down a long time ago.
I've never had anyone confront me in the way the OP was confronted, but if I were I would have to confess that I'm no scholar. I go by my experience of Hinduism, the examples set up other Hindus and the vast majority of what I have learned about the "fundamentals" of Dharma. When you start getting in to Puranic stories and really nitty gritty details you have to look at things in context first. But the bottom line is that people who bring stuff like that up, while ignoring the wider picture, aren't interested in understanding Hinduism. The want to vilify it to validate their own beliefs because their insecurity keeps them from being confident in their own faith without demonizing others.
IN short, I'd say explain your stance firmly but calmly, then walk away and ignore if it starts getting heated. There's no point in trying to win an argument with someone who simply enjoys arguing. You'll be there all day.
:camp:
I would explain, logically, that Prajapati and Ushas are not Brahma and Saraswati though they are often equated with them. The story that your 'friend' is referring to is that of Prajapati, the primordial creator, and Ushas, the Dawn.
Prajapati sees his 'daughter' and is overwhelmed with - let's say - creative lust. But Ushas does not reciprocate and runs away. Prajapati gives chase, so Ushas transforms herself into a deer. Prajapati likewise transforms himself into a stag. I believe Ushas cries out for help (my memory of this story is somewhat foggy) and Rudra - he of the howling winds - kills Prajapati before he can commit the sin of rape and therefore saves Ushas from the shame and guilt of an unwanted suitor forcing himself upon the unfettered dawn.
And then I would ask this 'friend' if they really believe in djinn. Because if they do, that's as nonsensical as believing that the primordial creator tried to rape the dawn.
Prajapati sees his 'daughter' and is overwhelmed with - let's say - creative lust. But Ushas does not reciprocate and runs away. Prajapati gives chase, so Ushas transforms herself into a deer. Prajapati likewise transforms himself into a stag. I believe Ushas cries out for help (my memory of this story is somewhat foggy) and Rudra - he of the howling winds - kills Prajapati before he can commit the sin of rape and therefore saves Ushas from the shame and guilt of an unwanted suitor forcing himself upon the unfettered dawn.
And then I would ask this 'friend' if they really believe in djinn. Because if they do, that's as nonsensical as believing that the primordial creator tried to rape the dawn.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
IMHO, the parents are fools. Too much of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. Muslim one fortnight, Christian the other fortnight. Are they Bengalies, Brahmosamaj, something like UU Church (for UUs, it is a church and not a temple)? Is it an inter-religious marriage and the parents are trying to cope with it?
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Your reading is correct but for a few thing. Ushas are not Rohini. Ushas are sometimes mentioned as spouses of Surya. Yes, Prajapati inclining towards Rohini was not accepted and one of his five heads (he had one also on the top) was cut down by Rudra to be left with four. Rudra does not kill Prajapati.
Aryans did believe in djinns. They called them dasas and dasyus. There were several of them - Vritra, Kuvaya, Namuchi, Shambara, etc., who stole the sun and brought the winters in. The Aryan legions Indra, Agni, Ashwins, Soma along with Atharvans and Angirasas, etc. killed the demons and brought the cows out.
Philomath
Sadhaka
It doesn't matter if it is real or not. The point is that it is not a revelation, nor a doctrinal truth. Neither is it credal for it to be believed in. In other words, it is not faith-identifying nor faith-defining. It is not centralistic. Therefore, it's not about being
I understand this and I just simply wanted to know if such a story actually existed. I'd never heard of it before and seriously doubted that it did. Sorry for derailing the thread.
Well, that is just it, isn't it Aup-ji? We recognise that these things did not necessarily happen. They are allegories and not set in stone history.
Sri Lankan Tamil. The Catholic church has a very strong presence. It's relatively common amongst the Sri Lankans. In Kerala too its common.