Some questions !!!

[Aupmanyav]

Yea he does, Bhagwan Shri Krishna states this. Thats how i learnt it. I know a Brahmin who eats beef!!! So, Bhagwan states clearly Varna Ashram Dharm is through birth and not deed.

Understand your Geeta first. What Lord Krishna says is 'Janmat Varnah' (Varna by birth - natural inclination) and not 'Vamshat Varnah' (Varna by descent). Yudhishthira in reply to the Yaksha says 'a brahmin is by deeds'. Manusmriti says 'deeds can lower a brahmin to other varnas'. A brahmin is a brahmin only till he follows the 'dharma' of his 'varna' (class). A brahmin may be a brahmin by descent but he has to maintain his 'dharma'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is scientifically proven that the energy within a murti is significantly increased after it is consecrated (the Diety is invited to dwell within it). Years ago, there was a world-wide miracle when murtis were drinking milk. A spoonful of milk was placed near the mouth of the murti and it would slowly disappear. I personally fed one of my grandmother's murtis some milk and witnessed it first hand. We did it with a murti she often uses for worship. At the same time, she had a newer murti that she never really used for worship. We fed that one milk also but it was not accepting it. This is because the Deity was probably not residing in it.

This is known as psuedo-science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Truth: There have been many 'smritis' (Rememberances of law and times) in hinduism apart from Manusmriti. My grandfather was perhaps the writer of the latest 'smriti' which he got published as 'Vishweshwarassmriti' (1945). It is a tome of 8,000 verses. Here are some excerpts from it (English translation first):

Earlier there was no division of humans into varnas. Later for the management of society it was made according to professions.

Nasedvarnavibhagah prag manushyeshu tatah param,
samajasya vyavasthartha karmabhi sa vyarachyata.

The weak state to which human reaches by neglect of the feet, the same happens to the society by disregarding the shudras.

Upekhsyaya nirbalabhyam padabhyam dehasya ya dasha,
samajasya~pi saiva syacha shudrajaterupekhshyaya.

No person is mlechcha or chandal by birth, but by his actions. In Kaliyuga, many call themselves Brahmins, Kshatriya and Vaishya, even if they have fallen from their designated duties.

Naiva mlechcho~ntyajo va syad janmana kintu karmana,
bhrashtacharah subahavah kalou tu dvijamaninah.

If due to many reasons those who have fallen from their duties can not be punished, then why should impediments be put in the way of others (shudras) in their step-by-step rise.

Bhrashtachara adandyashchet kanarairvividhairbhuvi,
katham vighna upasthapyastarhyanyasya kramonnatou.

Vedas, Shastras and puranas contain many instances of rise and in the same way fall of varnas here and there.

Vedashastrapuraneshu varnonnatyastvanekashah,
tathaiva chavanatyashcha santyullekha itastatah.

Rajarshi Vishwamitra first turned into a Brahmarshi, and his elder (fifty) sons became shudras due to their actions.

Vishwamitrastu rajasrhirbrahmarshirabhavatpura,
jyayamsastasya putrastu shudratvam karmato gatah.

Even now the family history of those with money and authority is not considered. This is definitely the rule of times. Who can stop this rule in the world.

Kulanadyapyachintyani dhaninam chadhikarinam,
kalasya hi vyavastheyamjagatyam kena varyate.

No one is a descendent of Sun, none a descendent of Moon, neither a descendent of fire, nor a descendent of gods, on this earth.

Na kopisuryavamshyo~sti chandravamshyo~thava bhuvi,
nakopi chagnivamsheyo divyavamshyo~thava punah.

 

[TashaN]

I read about harsh punishment for those who talk to or insult a Berhamin--just in case someone did--and no need to mention these punishments. Do they still apply them in India until today?

 

[Hema]

This is known as psuedo-science.

Because we can't fully understand it or explain it!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Manusmriti is not shariat law. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 brahmins have read 'Manusmriti', I have not (I have read only excerpts from it). Punishment in India is according to the penal code which we adopted from the British.

 

[mahesh]

Understand your Geeta first. What Lord Krishna says is 'Janmat Varnah' (Varna by birth - natural inclination) and not 'Vamshat Varnah' (Varna by descent). Yudhishthira in reply to the Yaksha says 'a brahmin is by deeds'. Manusmriti says 'deeds can lower a brahmin to other varnas'. A brahmin is a brahmin only till he follows the 'dharma' of his 'varna' (class). A brahmin may be a brahmin by descent but he has to maintain his 'dharma'.

No I friend I know my gita. What I was talking of was: “Sages look with an equal eye in a Brahmin endowed with learning and humility, in a cow, in an elephant, and even in a dog and in an outcaste (13).

There is an Upanishadic story of a boy who went to a guru to study the various holy Hindu scriptures. His guru asked him what his varna was. Consulting his mother, who was actually a prostitute who didn't really know what her caste was, the boy returned to the guru and told him that he was all castes. He worshipped the Gods, thus fulfilling the duties that are ordinarily a Brahmin's, he earned his keep like a Vaishya, took care of cleaning the house, like a Shudra, and protected his family's interest like a Kshatriya. The guru was pleased and told the boy he was fit to be taught and initiated into the Brahmin's life

Whatever the case of the Brahmins. A brahmin is still a Brahmin through his deed and same for a shudra. If a brahmin by birth eats cows, kills, and commits crimes then He is a Shudra. Hence it is by deed! Yeah When Yudhistira answered the question of Yam in the form of Yaksh, he also stated this.

In the Purusha sukta of Rigveda 10.90 : "Brahmana is the mouth of the purusha, KShatriya his arms, vaishya is his thighs and shudra arose from his feet" - an obvious reference to the organic (purusha) nature of the society, sustained by the harmonious integration of functional groups (organs) working in unison. One should note here that, the Purusha sukta verse of Rigveda should not be taken literally, as it is rendered in a poetical way to compare God like a human with 1000 arms and legs to portray his immense strength and valor. As some try to convolute this concept by saying shudras arose out of feet and hence they are lower in the society, one should not overlook the fact according to Purusha sukta that everyone arose from God and Gods leg is not inferior to his mouth and vice versa and also the point that God himself is not formless.

 

[Hema]

No I friend I know my gita. What I was talking of was: “Sages look with an equal eye in a Brahmin endowed with learning and humility, in a cow, in an elephant, and even in a dog and in an outcaste (13).

One of my favourite quotes!

Words to live by! :yes:

 

[TashaN]

Manusmriti is not shariat law. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 brahmins have read 'Manusmriti', I have not (I have read only excerpts from it). Punishment in India is according to the penal code which we adopted from the British.

I see. So, can you help me please with understanding the followings:

Don't teach a Shudra’ – Skand Puran, Vaishnav Kand, Chapter 19.

Low caste people should not be imparted any knowledge. If a teacher tries to preach a Shudra, he would be a victim of many and evil. If a Brahmin teaches a Shudra, other Brahmins should boycott him. Such a Brahmin teacher must be shunned as if he was a ‘Chandal’ and also driven out of the village, educated Shudras should also be ousted. - Brahma Kand Chapter 10.

It is mentioned in the ‘Gautam Dharm Sutra’ that: “If a Shudra happens to hear the Vedic hymns, molten metal should be poured into his ears. If he chants the things he must be slashed with axes etc.

according to Gautam Dharm Sutra, “If a Shudra ventures to sit on the same level or to sleep in the same bed or to walk on the seem road or to talk as the twice born (Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya), he must be subjected to various punishments. – Gautam Dharam Sutra 2/3/5.

Manusmriti says one can atone for the sin of killing animals like cats and dogs by observing the same vow as one does after killing the Shudra. – Manusmriti 11/131.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I have already mentioned, Manusmriti, Skanda Purana, and Bhavishya Purana are some of the most corrupted texts in Hinduism. Brahmins made changes in Manusmriti and ganged up to protect the interpolations, because they had written these to benefit themselves. This is what Wikipedia has to say about Skanda Purana: "Skanda (81,100 verses), probably the longest of all, containing parables, legends and stories, with multiple versions and recensions. Many untraced quotes from a Purana are conveniently attributed to this Purana."

Bhavishya Purana, no doubt, is an old book, but it is one of the most interpolated. Here are some views on it from Wikipedia: "The Pratisargaparvan, though nominally mentioned in the Bhaviṣya (I.1.2-3), is practically a new work containing stories about Adam, Noah, Yākuta, Taimurlong, Nadir Shah, Akbar (the emperor of Delhi), Jayacandra, ... and many others. It even knows the British rule in India and names Calcutta and the Parliament." A. K. Ramanujan mentions finding references to Christ, Moses, and Queen Victoria in the "appropriately up-to-date Bhaviṣya Purāṇa" and cites this as an example of the fact that: "In spite of repeated efforts to impose schemes and canons on them from time to time, Purāṇas are open systems.

There is not much interpolation in the RigVeda, Upanishads, or BhagawadPurana. Hindus do not have a Torah, Bible, or Qur'an, which is binding on them (thank our stars for that). Any portion of Manusmriti, Skanda Purana, Bhavishya Purana, or any other book, which goes against common sense is summarily rejected. The passages that you mention are certainly there, but they stand only as a blot against hindus, and a reminder of dark periods. And they are far from the truth.

If the brahmins were not supposed to teach the Shudras, how is it that all the great books of hinduism were written by Shudras, Maha Rishi and Brahma Rishi Veda Vyas and Valmiki, and how come Vidur was considered the most learned person in Krishna's time? How come, Jabali, who was the son of of a woman in prostitution and a shudra to boot, is considred a sage? How come 7 out of 12 vaishnava saints of Taml Nadu are non-brahmins? How come hindus rever Kabir, Ravidas, Dadu, and even Abdur Rahim Khan-e-khana or Malik Mohammad Jayasi at par with Tulsi Das, Surdas, and other brahmin saints.

 

[Hema]

The authoritative texts in Hinduism are the Vedas. The Vedas were not composed by humans. At the beginning of each cycle of creation, they are manifested. Therefore, the first Sages on earth, by meditating, heard the sounds of the universe and heard the Vedas. At the end of each cycle of creation, the Vedas are reabsorbed into Brahman - the Absolute Truth/Reality.

The Vedas are known as Shruti texts. Other texts in Hinduism are Smriti. Shruti literally means "what is heard". Smriti means "what is remembered".

Since Manusmriti is being mentioned in the discussion, I thought I would include this from the following website:
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0305/44.html

"As per shloka numbered (6) of Chapter 2 in Manu Smriti, “Veda is the foundation of entire Dharma.” Shloka numbered 2(13) of Manu Smriti specifies that whenever shruti (vedas) and smritis differ, stipulation of Vedas will prevail over smritis. In view of this position, anything discriminatory in Manu Smriti or anywhere else is anti-Veda, and therefore, is not sanctioned by Hinduism and has subsequently been inserted with unholy intentions, and deserves to be weeded out."


Therefore, if a Smriti text contradicts a Shruti text, the Shruti is to be accepted and the Smriti rejected.

Taken from the same site, these are some things the Vedas have to say about societal relations:



[SIZE=+1]"There is a misconception in some minds that Hindu scriptures sanction the caste system.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Vedas, the proud possession of mankind, are the foundation of Hinduism. Vedas are all-embracing, and treat the entire humanity with the same respect and dignity. Vedas speak of nobility of entire humanity (krinvanto vishvam aryam), and do not sanction any caste system or birth-based caste system. Mantra, numbered 10-13-1 in Rig Veda, addresses the entire humanity as divine children (shrunvantu vishve amrutsya putraha). Innumerable mantras in Vedas emphasise oneness, universal brotherhood, harmony, happiness, affection, unity and commonality of entire humanity.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]A few illustrations are given here. Vide Mantra numbered 5-60-5 in Rig Veda, the divine poet declares, “All men are brothers; no one is big, no one is small. All are equal.” Mantra numbered 16.15 in Yajur Veda reiterates that all men are brothers; no one is superior or inferior. Mantra numbered 10-191-2 in Rig Veda calls upon humanity to be united to have a common speech and a common mind. Mantra numbered 3-30-1 in Atharva Veda enjoins upon all humans to be affectionate and to love one another as the cow loves her newly-born calf. Underlining unity and harmony still further, Mantra numbered 3-30-6 in Atharva Veda commands humankind to dine together, and be as firmly united as the spokes attached to the hub of a chariot wheel."[/SIZE]

 

[Aupmanyav]

I would not accept that Vedas are divine. The names of the writers of verses are clearly given, among them my forebears, the Vashishthas and Upamanyu.

IMHO, by being heard (Shruti) they meant a person's inner voice when thinking intensely, like the intution that a poet gets.

I suppose I read somewhere that a person should decide his course of action first by Shruti, then by Smriti, then by Puranas, and lastly by his own conscience.

Thanks, The Truth, I have started on Buhler's translation at www.sacred-texts.com, after being egged by our discussions, done two chapters, did not find any seriously offending lines (there are 10 to go, perhaps a week), Dayanada's translation can be expected to be biased towards hindus.

 

[Hema]

IMHO, by being heard (Shruti) they meant a person's inner voice when thinking intensely, like the intution that a poet gets.

IMHO, the voice of God.

 

[mahesh]

Your Nastik views would suggest this wouldnt they? The Vedas have names such as Vashisht etc as the Vedas you will be reading have been Re-written by by Sage Vashishta etc. But this doesnt mean they have been altered.

The Vedas are apaurusheya ("not human compositions"), they have been directly revealed, and are called śrutis ("what is heard").

As I have already mentioned, Manusmriti, Skanda Purana, and Bhavishya Purana are some of the most corrupted texts in Hinduism.

Do you have proof of this?

 

[Hema]

Plus, Swami Shivananda of The Divine Life Society, Rishikesh writes at:
http://www.hinduism.co.za/vedas-.htm

“The Srutis are called the Vedas, or the Amnaya. The Hindus
have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas.
These are direct intuitional revelations and are held to be
Apaurusheya or entirely superhuman, without any author in
particular. The Veda is the glorious pride of the Hindus, nay,
of the whole world!
The term Veda comes from the root Vid, to know. The word
Veda means knowledge. When it is applied to scripture, it
signifies a book of knowledge. The Vedas are the foundational scriptures of the Hindus. The Veda is the source of the other five sets of scriptures, why, even of the secular and the materialistic. The Veda is the storehouse of Indian wisdom and is a memorable glory which man can never forget till eternity.
Revealed Truth Without Beginning Or End
The Vedas are the eternal truths revealed by God to the great
Rishis of India. The word Rishi means a seer, from DRIS, to
see. The Rishi is the Mantra-Drashta, a seer of Mantra or
thought. The thought was not his own. The Rishis saw the
truths or heard them. Therefore, the Vedas are what are
heard (Sruti). The Rishi did not write. He did not create it out
of his mind. He was the seer of thought which existed already.
He was only the spiritual discoverer of the thought. He is not the inventor of the Veda.
The Vedas represent the spiritual experiences of the Rishis
of yore. The Rishi is only a medium or an agent to transmit to
people the intuitional experiences which he received. The
truths of the Vedas are revelations. All the other religions of
the world claim their authority as being delivered by special
messengers of God to certain persons, but the Vedas do not
owe their authority to any one. They are themselves the
authority as they are eternal, as they are the Knowledge of the
Lord.
Lord Brahma, the Creator, imparted the divine knowledge to the Rishis or seers. The Rishis disseminated the knowledge. The Vedic Rishis were great realised persons (souls) who had direct intuitive perception of Brahman or the Truth.”

 

[mahesh]

^^^ Very intresting and spot on!! Much better than Wikipedia ike Aupmanyav showed lol.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Your Nastik views would suggest this wouldnt they? The Vedas have names such as Vashisht etc as the Vedas you will be reading have been Re-written by by Sage Vashishta etc. But this doesnt mean they have been altered.

The Vedas are 'apaurusheya' (not human compositions), they have been directly revealed, and are called śrutis ("what is heard").

Do you have proof of this?

Your shouting on internet does not convey anything other than your ill manners. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to, including that Swami Sahajananda was 'Parabrahman' (so, really he created Vedas and passed it on to the rishis?).

For me, the situation is simple. Vedas contain much wisdom, so people accepted them as divine. It is a mark of respect. Like the beauty of Himalayas, we say they are divinely beautiful. When somebody dies, we say he/she has become 'Brahmaleen', though we never know whether he has really become 'brahmaleen', or he has gone to heaven or hell.

With all respect to Swami Shivananda, whom I rever greatly, but he makes Hinduism sound no better than Christianity or Islam. That is a fallacy, I am proud of Hinduism because it is not dogmatic, it is based on knowledge, and is able to keep in step with science. You said 'Vid' is knowledge. Dogmatism is not 'Vid'. Wikipedia never claims that whatever is written in it is absolute truth, they don't claim to be 'divinely revealed'.

I am not a nastik, I believe in the wisdom of Vedas and I believe in the existence of 'Brahman', though I do not believe in divine heirarchy, Parabrahman, Brahman, Ishwar, Devas. That, I believe, is ignorance. Vedas say 'Ekameva Adviteeyam' (there is only one and no second). Even a dog is Brahman, even a stone is. On the contrary, it is you who is flouting the Vedas by making Swami Sahajananda into a 'super Brahman'. Wisdom is not a comic book.

 

[TashaN]

So all the scriptures i mentioned in my pervious post are corrupted?

I thought its all about philosophical issues and no scripture is suprior to the other.

 

[mahesh]

Swaminarayan Bhagwan is Parbrahm. the dog and stone are made of Mahatatvas. The Dog however is a jeev. It is chaitanya. Because of KArma it is a dog. It may slowly move uo the hierarchy to realise Bhagwan and serve Him. This will in turn make the soul one with Brahm as it will be beyond the three attributes of Maya. Once Maya is rossed PArbrahm and PArbrahm is worshipped one is enlightened and when the soul leaves the body it attains Brahmdham the abodes of God liek VAikunth, Golok, Akshardham etc and serves PArbrahman.

 

[Hema]

With all respect to Swami Shivananda, whom I rever greatly, but he makes Hinduism sound no better than Christianity or Islam.

I don't know of much Swamis who try to make Hinduism seem superior to other religions.

I'm a Hindu because I was born in a Hindu home and I love my religion. I was born a Hindu and I will die a Hindu.One of the things I love most about Hinduism is that it sees all religions as paths to God. Hindus see all religions as paths leading to God just as many rivers can take take different courses but they can all lead to the same one ocean.