Why do Hindus and Jews get along great

[Surya Deva]

On Aryans:

I suggest you read Swami Vivekanada's essay entitled Aryans and Tamilians. He lays to rest the notion that Aryans and Tamilians/Dravidians are different races. Even today the differences betweeen so-called Aryans and Dravidians are very small, some Aryans are darker skinned and some are lighter skinned; likewise some Tamilians are darker skinned and some are lighter skinned. The difference is only linguistic; Aryans speak Sanskrit and Dravidians speak Tamil.

To base Indian history on Iranian history is fallacious. Scholars like Witzel, which is really another AIT scholar in disguise, trace Hinduism to Zoroastrianism. But Hinduism is thousands of years older than Zoroastrianism and none of the Vedic features are consistent with it. The geography described in the Vedas is consistent with India. As there is no records in Indian history or Vedic history of any kind of migration or invasion, to continue to insist there was one despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is stupidity really.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Vedantic philosophy is that Atman is the core of all beings

Core or whole?
"Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnamudachyate;
Purnasya purnamadaya, purnamevavasishyate."

If only soul is Brahman, then what is a body without a soul? What is that made of? Where from has that material (if one would say that) originated?
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma"
Even a dead body, even a stone.

For races in India, kindly read Ethnic groups of South Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Races and castes are not bad things untill one discriminates because of them. I may be from the Aryan stock, someone else may be from Dravidian stock, so what? We are both Indians and possibly hindus. Our identity is merged.

 

[niranjan]

'Jnana yoga ( yoga of the intellect ) considers Brahman as the impersonal absolute.': The Upanishads (part of Vedas) say 'Ayamatma Brahma', 'Tat twam asi', 'Aham Brahmasmi'. Where is the Supreme Being?

The Supreme Being is Brahman, the allpervading consciousness which comprises everything including you.

Sat Chit Anand -- Truth ,Being ,Bliss.

This is our true nature.

'
'Aryan Invasion Theory/Migration theory is counter to the teachings of the Vedas, ..': In what way Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory is contrary to the teachings of the Vedas? That was my question, and you have not answered it.

I have answered it clearly in my post.Read it again.

'
'The Arya is the name of the indigenous religion and culture that came up in India. Not a race of people which is absurd and idiotic to believe ..': The word 'Aryavarta' or 'Brahmavarta' refers only to the area irrigated by Rivers Saraswati and Drishadvati (roughly modern Haryana). That means that all people in India were not Aryans.

Again , irrevalent arguments.

And was Ayodhya, among the area irrigated by Saraswati or Drishadvati.After all the dark-skinned Rama of Ayodhya, which is in the east, was considered among the foremost of Aryas.

The Ramayana's description of Rama is as follows ,"arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah, meaning "Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone."



I wish to again emphasize that Arya according to the Vedas and Hindu scriptures means 'noble'. It has never been affiliated with any race.

Beyond Vindhya Mountains, it was Dakshinavarta, and Sage Agastya was supposedly the first Aryan to cross it. Similarly the movement of Aryans to east along River Ganges is well recorded. If later, the word was used to signify 'a noble and a civilized person', that is besides the point. How do you, then, account for the vast difference in skin-color between people living in North India, some are so fair, and some are so dark (it does not mean that the fair are superior to the dark; but it does mean that they may be from two or more racial groups)?

RAma, Krishna,Veda Vyasa,Draupadi and many of the Rishis were all dark-skinned. How do you account for that!!!

Lord Vishnu himself ,whom the Hindus worshipped, is black-skinned according to the scriptures.

India has always receieved peoples from all over the world, who later embraced the sanatana dharma and blended with the local peoples and traditions.

The Greeks, Huns, Tartars, Scythians ,Kushanas are some of these foreigners who settled in Indian and embraced the dharmic traditions.

As Swami Vivekananda ,who was of tartar blood himself, stated emphatically ,"Hindus are a mixed race."

'

Read about Aryan at Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Aria (modern Herat) at Aria (satrapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Harahvaiti (another equivalent of Saraswati, Aryans usually named the principal river of the region in which they lived as Saraswati), probably Herat and the valley of the River Hari-Rud is mentioned at the tenth homeland of Aryans in Avesta.

And the very fact that the River Saraswati , which has been mentioned in the vedas, Ramayana and Mahabharatha, has been estimated by geologists on the basis of scientific research to have dried up around 5000 and 3000 B.C., is enough to prove the Aryan Invasion Theory wrong,as it far predates the arrival of the so-called 'foreign aryans ' to India which had been stated by racist historians and experts.( ironically leaving no significant trace or base of their dynamic civilization anywhere in central asia from which they are supposed to 'emerge'.)

'
'The term also remains a frequent element in modern Persian personal names, including Arya and Aryan (boy's and girl's name), Aryana (a common surname), Iran-Dokht (Aryan daughter, 'Aryan-duhita', a girl's name), Aryanpour (or Aryanpur, a surname), Aryamane, Ary among many others. The terms "Aryan" and "Iranian" are sometimes used interchangeably, as in the Iranian bank chain, Aryan Bank.'

The persians followed zoroastrianism in persia,which is next door to India.Hence cultural exchanges are sure to happen.

However Zoroastrianism, if studied in depth, easily shows no resemblance to the henotheistic sanatana dharma. While zoroastrianism worships the monotheistic God Ahura Mazda, Sanatana Dharma worships the monistic Brahman.

Many important concepts in Zoroastrianism is missing in the Sanatana Dharma and vice versa.

'

Pancha-janas: 5 tribes namely Anus, Druhus, Yadus, Turvasas and Purus.
* Seven-sistered, sprung from threefold source, the Five Tribes' prosperer, she must be Invoked in every deed of might. (6.61.12)
* Indra who rules with single sway men, riches, and the fivefold race
Of those who dwell upon the earth. (1.7.9)
* All manliness that is in heaven, with the Five Tribes, or in mid-air,
Bestow, ye Asvins, upon us. (8.9.2)
* The Twain invincible in war, worthy to be renowned in frays,
Lords of the Fivefold People, these, Indra and Agni, we invoke. (5.86.2)
* Who for the Fivefold People's take hath seated him in every home
Wise, Youthful, Master of the house. (7.15.2)
* Agni, may we show forth our valour with the steed or with the power of prayer beyond all other men;
And over the Five Races let our glory shine high like the realm of light and unsurpassable. (2.2.10)

These were 5 tribes that followed the Aryan culture. Nothing more is to be inferred from this.

The Vanaras in the Ramayana,themselves called themselves as Aryas.Same too with Ravana, who lived in the south in Sri Lanka, who was a Brahmin adept in the Vedas,and who called himself and his followers as Aryas.

Even now there are Brahmins in India, who condemn Rama, a Kshatriya, for killing Ravana, a Brahmin.

'
The problem is that the Arya Samajis have only one thing to depend upon, the Vedas (of course, as understood by them). That is why they cannot swallow that Aryans may have come from outside India.

It is not just the Arya Samaj, but the Ramakrishna Mission , the Aurobindo Mission and all other major Hindu institutions and organisations who staunchly state that Aryas are an indigenous religion and culture, and not a race.

And not only the Vedas, but all the other Hindu scriptures support the fact that Arya is an indigenous culture and religion of India.

Vedas are the main authority in Hinduism, but all other scriptures too have their
own authority and stand in Hinduism,and none of them should be discounted.

'

Arya Samaj is nothing but a concoction, an artifice.

I remember reading that during the islamic invasions in Kashmir, many Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam.When later they demanded the Kashmiri Brahmins to bring them back to Hinduism, the orthodox Brahmins opposed this, though their stand was without any basis in the scriptures.

I believe if the Arya Samaj was present in those times, the great tragedy that happened to Kashmir later on could have been easily avoided.

 

[niranjan]

You just said it yourself, "the impersonal absolute", that is the supreme being. The Vedantic philosophy is that Atman is the core of all beings . The definition of supreme being is that which is the absolute.

Are you familiar with how the Vedas describe it:

ABSOLUTE
- Ishwara/Mahat
- Purusu - Prana
- Prakriti - Aksasha

The absolute is that fundamental state of being of non-duality and is unmanifest. When it becomes manifest it becomes cosmic mind and then there is a duality of two principles the cosmic field which is Moolaprakriti and the cosmic soul, Purush which is consciousness. Then there is yet another differentiation whereby Moolaprakriti becomes Akasha and Purush becomes Prana, which really is just Jivatman(a localised unit of consciousness) which becomes an individual subject to the field, the world. They are essentially the same absolute. That we call Brahman.

I have noted your posts in the past and I think you don't really understand this. You insist that space, time and energy is this Brahman and whereby you identify Brahman with phenomenon, which is the opposite of Vedanta, which is a metaphysical theory. If you are citing from the Upanishads, then you should take note the Upanishads themselves say categorically that Brahman is not space, time and energy, it is that which precedes them. That is because space and time are relational things, that can only come into existence upon detection and thus imply duality. But Brahman is that which is relational to nothing, it is the substratum within which everything, including our individualism takes place and thus it is unknowable by any kind of observation. It cannot be made the object of our perception or our reason.

Impressively well said.

To say Brahman is space, time and energy is not Vedanta, which is metaphysics, it is materialism. You could hardly justify calling yourself a Vedantist when what you believe is the opposite of what it says. But by all means call yourself a materialist.

These were my own thoughts as well, which you articulated so well over here.

This materialistic streak in him is also the reason for his obsession with the AIT , which others have discarded, and which in itself reeks of materialism, and brings to mind a few psychos of the west.

Problem with Aupy is that most of his knowledge is based on book learning, and not out of Satsang or the company of a realised master.

The Rishis themselves who composed the Vedas and Upanishads were such realised enlightened souls, and it is only in the company of such genuine Self-realized masters that one discovers the truth oneself.

It has been emphasized again and again in the scriptures that Brahman cannot be understood through the intellect, and one has to transcend the intellect for that, and hence meditation ,yoga and the company of realized masters is necessary.

And it is also for this reason that Chanakya had stated in the Chanakya Niti(composed 2000 years back ), that one who gathers his knowledge only from books and not from the company of a master, should be accorded the status in society that a pregnant unwed maiden deserves.

Though Chanakya's above teaching may seem a bit harsh, his point however has its merits which should not be ignored. :yoda:

 

[Surya Deva]

Core or whole?
"Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnamudachyate;
Purnasya purnamadaya, purnamevavasishyate."

If only soul is Brahman, then what is a body without a soul? What is that made of? Where from has that material (if one would say that) originated?
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma"
Even a dead body, even a stone.

No, Aupmanyav, I was describing Atman as the core of all beings. Atman and Brahman are two different concepts. Atman is the core of all individual beings and Brahman is the all pervading spirit. Hence, the body and matter is also pervaded by Brahman. The Upanishads declare that Atman(the core of all beings) is the same as Brahman, the all pervading spirit.

Now to say the body and matter is Brahman too goes against the cardinal Vedic postulate that Brahman cannot be made an object of, "not this, not this" In Vedic metaphysics everything that is not Brahman is Maya. Therefore body is not Brahman, it is maya and Brahman and Maya are the opposite of one another. I have illustrated this to you in the other thread, "Knowing Brahman"

For races in India, kindly read Ethnic groups of South Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Races and castes are not bad things untill one discriminates because of them. I may be from the Aryan stock, someone else may be from Dravidian stock, so what? We are both Indians and possibly hindus. Our identity is merged.

Aupmanyav, South Asia and especially in India being a huge country, where each part has a different climate, naturally one is going to expect racial diversity. In a small country like UK alone you get racial diversity, but we all follow the same culture. Likewise in ancient India, there were many races and tribes, but they all followed Aryan culture. It was not to limited to any race. It was limited to the nobility or intellgensia of society, in the same way the academic world is limited to the intellgensia of the west.

Aryan is not a race Aupmanyav. It is a culture, and a culture that spread far and wide in the ancient world due to ancient India's economic and technological power. In the same way Western culture spread far and wide throughout the world for the same reason.

 

[Chotu]

Probably because Indians didn't see any one different on religious background as religion itself was alien term to Indians.Hindu is a modern term of ancient practices belief and theory an philosophy existing or accepted in India.
The modern notation of hinduism as polytheism is wrong in fact hinduism can not be generalised mostly today Hindus are often categorized as henotheist but this notion is also wrong as Hinduism also have pantheon neo pantheon,skeptic and atheist.
Even Rigveda have Skeptic and atheistic +verses.
That is why since they did not saw anyone much different as they themself were so varied there is no question of persecution or else.
See now when Hindus thought himself in a very religious way some of them hate Muslim or other though there own religion is strongly secular

 

[Jainarayan]

I think part, but not all, of the reason is because Jews don't preach, neither do Hindus. They've kept themselves to themselves, but been generally friendly with one another.

I know this is a resurrected thread, but it caught my eye because I feel the same way. I don't like to lump Judaism into "Abrahamic religions" when that term is used pejoratively. The Jews have always kept to themselves; they welcome converts, but they do not proselytize or actively seek converts. They have that one aspect in common with Hindus.

Moreover, Jews don't actually accept the vengeful bloodthirsty God of the OT as their God. They see that as metaphorical of the times those writings were made. Talk to any Jewish rabbi and he or she will talk of a loving God who condemns hatred, punishment and bloodshed. The irony is that Jews don't take their own bible literally the way Christians and Muslims do.