Smriti vs Shruti

[Shuddhasattva]

No. Only the quran has any claims or reasons. All other religious texts are composed of meaningless phrases. That's why Mohammed is the only true god and Allah is his prophet.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't think it is a DIR sub-forum. Is it?

I believe it is ... under same faith debates. Only Hinduism has Smriti and Shruti.

 

[Riverwolf]

Do Smriti and/or Shruti have claims and reasons in the text/context like Quran has?

Thanks for friend Vinayaka to suggest reading this thread.

I don't think it is a DIR sub-forum. Is it?

Nope. Debate to your heart's content! ...so long as you identify as Hindu.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bhavīśya Purāna.

Bhavīśya = Future
Purāna = 'of ancient times'

As the name suggests, it is an ancient text foretelling the events of the future. Like you say, it has names of Christ, East India Trading Company, Queen Victoria etc. Bhavīśya Purāna was first printed during the time of British rule. Why events of a later time were destroyed/missing in the printed text, whose interest would be harmed if it said "India will become independent in 1947" etc., is anybody's guess.

Also, this does not mean that the verses have been tampered with. It just means that certain portions have been destroyed/are missing.

As for temples and shrines, which do not exist till late middle ages, it only shows the correctness of Bhavīśya Purāna in predicting the events of future. Your information only proves Bhavīśya Purāna to be correct.

Bhavishya Purana tells us that Jesus came to India
and met A king called Salivahana .

Jesus Went To India

Is it true?

 

[paarsurrey]

No. Only the quran has any claims or reasons. All other religious texts are composed of meaningless phrases. That's why Mohammed is the only true god and Allah is his prophet.

Please

I think you get me wrong. I read Bhagavad Gita ; and I was much impressed with it. I believe in Krishna as a truthful messenger prophet of the one true attributive creator God; he was a defender of truthful religion, in my opinion.

 

[Vinayaka]

Nope. Debate to your heart's content! ...so long as you identify as Hindu.

So, paarsurrey, I see you have converted. How nice. Welcome to Hinduism!

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Bhavishya Purana tells us that Jesus came to India
and met A king called Salivahana .

Jesus Went To India

Is it true?

Yes. It is correct.

 

[Riverwolf]

Bhavishya Purana tells us that Jesus came to India
and met A king called Salivahana .

Jesus Went To India

Is it true?

AFAIK, there's nothing that's confirmed contemporary with that time period that indicates he went there.

The aspects of Indian philosophical thinking in Jesus's teachings is more likely to have come from interaction with traders from there.

 

[Madhuri]

Do Smriti and/or Shruti have claims and reasons in the text/context like Quran has?

Of course.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Bhavishya Purana tells us that Jesus came to India
and met A king called Salivahana .

Jesus Went To India

Is it true?

Jesus came to India to learn religion (dharma), which he later spread in the West as Christianity. If you see, there is a 'blank period' in Jesus's life - from age 12 yrs to 30 yrs.

Lost years of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is during this period that he traveled to India to learn religion. A detailed account of it can be found here: The Lost Years of Jesus: The Life of Saint Issa - Notovitch

What Bhavishya Purāna says is also confirming this: Jesus Went To India

So, if you put two and two together, you will come to the correct and logical conclusion.

 

[paarsurrey]

So, paarsurrey, I see you have converted. How nice. Welcome to Hinduism!

How do you see I have converted?

It is one of the basic tenets of Quran/Islam/Muhammad to believe in all the truthful messengers prophets of the one true attributive creator God; and Krishna was one among them like truthful Buddha,Zoroaster,Moses,Jesus, Socrates etc..

It is time now to join hands and get united on truth of religion than to deny it and become atheists/agnostics/skeptics-wandering purposelessly in confusion and doubt, in my opinion.

 

[Vinayaka]

See post 106 ... Riverwolf mentioned that as long as you're a Hindu, you're welcome to debate in this thread, so I just assumed ...

 

[paarsurrey]

I am not sure of the rules; it is a debate forum and not DIR section. I would like to ask if non-Hindus are not allowed to discuss here in soft words.

Please

 

[Vinayaka]

Neither am I. I was going by what Riverwolf said. But it's fine by me, but I don't make the rules. It's under same faith debates, which I assume means Hindu versus Hindu given the topic. But I'm probably wrong, given that I'm usually wrong.

The Koran is neither shruti or smrti, because its not a Hindu scripture at all, so any discussion of the Koran would be irrelevant in this debate, in my opinion, but once again, I'm probably wrong.

 

[Riverwolf]

It's pretty much a Hindus-only debate.

 

[Vinayaka]

@ Paarsurrey ... Of course anyone is free to start a new debate under comparative religions when something like this happens.

 

[paarsurrey]

It's pretty much a Hindus-only debate.

Sorry for that.

 

[paarsurrey]

So I start a thread taking its topic “Time to get united on truth of religion” from a sentence from my post #111 in this thread; open for everybody to join the discussion whatever the religion or no religion. It is in “General Religious Debates” section.

Thanks for everybody