RE:Sarath Chandra
by AmarAkbar Antony on Oct 06, 2007 06:23 AM Permalink
It is like my telling my employer that I am the last CEO, or COO, or MD, etc. Say if Madmohan oops Manmohan Singh claims that he is the last PM of India and that there can be nor more PM what will happen to India.
I for one do not understand this last business. Why do all these people say they are last. So that their name remains ever and ever in history.
In other words, you do not leave any choice to God. Suppose down the line God wants to send some more messengers, this Jesus and Mohammed have sealed the options.
That way Hindu religion is the best which says that as and when God requires based on the situation in the world more Avataars will take birth.
RE:hinduism
by Leeladitya on Oct 06, 2007 05:23 AM Permalink
A small correction Sarath. Hinduism is not at all a religion. It's the way of life of the people who flourished on the banks of river sindhu. The arabs had a problem with pronouncing sindhu and they called it hindu. The greeks had a much bigger problem and they called it Indu. Hinduism in reality is a free land where human minds are allowed to evolve. And hence we have a vedic tradition which deals with rituals. And we have upanishads which contradict vedic tradition. We have religion which evolved from the roots of non-voilence and we have another which evolved from vegetarianism. Also we have a spiritual tradition where gods are not involved and the emphasis is on the soul and the eternal. Any outsider who wants to refer to any of these practices would often use a generic term called Hinduism. Comments appreaciated.
RE:hinduism
by Leeladitya on Oct 06, 2007 05:55 AM Permalink
The name is never derogatory Jon..it's the character of the creature that carries that name that is susceptible to derogation.
RE:RE:hinduism
by Bipin Musale on Oct 06, 2007 06:11 AM Permalink
It is a misconception that the word "Hindu" is a deregotary term coined by Arabs. The word"Hindu" finds reference in our ancient literature too(it is said). It stands for "Heenani gunani dushayati iti Hindu" i.e. a Hindu is one who destroys the bad instincts within him on priority basis or a person who gives spiritual upliftment priority(over material progress). Thus the words "Christain" or a "Mohamadan" stand for "follower" of somebody but a Hindu is not one who follows anybody but one who is convinced of what to do and does it.
RE:RE:RE:hinduism
by Leeladitya on Oct 06, 2007 06:19 AM Permalink
Hi Bipin. I never said that the term Hindu is a dergotary term coined by Arabs. It's the phonetics that dictate the pronounciation as far as I believe. And coming to your reference, anything written in Sanskrit is considered to be ancient becuase of selective works made by selective scholars until middle ages. It's hard to know when this identity called Hindu was accepted by people of the Indian sub-continent and when it found it's place in the texts. Just an observation Bipin.
RE:hinduism
by bharati sarkar on Oct 06, 2007 06:19 AM Permalink
If you scratch the surface of Hinduism you will see Vaishnavism.Vaishnav means a bhakta or devotee of Vishnu(Krsna).Vaishnavism is also called 'Sanatana dharma' or 'Eternal religion'.Dharma(does not mean religion) means 'intrinsic nature' or 'swabhav'.The dharma of 'atma'that is to worship the 'Param atma' or Lord Sri Krsna.Therefore Krsna states in Bhag.Gita,'to abandon all varieties of religion since the extant religions are merely extensions of our bodily designation.But we are not this body.We are spirit souls.Therefore He states 'Mam ekam saranam braja',that is, simply take My shelter.Therefore true dharma(religion) defined as 'dharmam tu saksad bhagvat pranitam'(Bhagvatam), means,true religion is to follow the instructions of Lord Sri Krsna.Therefore dharma is something very specific not speculative.Non violence and vegetarinism are the effects not causes of dharma. Gita is also called Gitopnaishad,therefore Upanishads are part and parcel of Vedic literature.There can only be one God.The 'gods' you mention are demigods and demigodesses (devi,devta).The devi,devtas are not independent,but like us they are completely dependent on Lord Krsna,for their existence.Even the topmost demigod,Lord Shiva,is created by Krsna.Lord Shiva, is also the topmost Vaishnav,'vaishnavanam yatha Shambhu'. deepak sarkar
RE:hinduism
by Shalin Vasavada on Oct 06, 2007 05:51 AM Permalink
nice job! but i believe more than being Hindu and keep thinking about our culture, our real problem is traitors within our country. we must act today to protected our future. still.. very well said Leeladitya!
RE:hinduism
by Leeladitya on Oct 06, 2007 06:08 AM Permalink
Don't worry Shalin. The way I believe, from the evidence we get from history, it's the oppressed who draw strength from the weakness. It's a natural thing with human mind, body and society. The Indian society is on the right track of revitalisation. Home made food will only appeal once you are vexed with the fast food.
RE:Oops this guy is a real freak! But anither incredible
by Swami Aravind on Oct 06, 2007 05:08 AM Permalink
Sorry guys, I am not here to criticise any relegion, but don't judge Jeses by looking at X'ns, don't judge Allha by looking at Muslims, and Don't judge Hindu GOD by looking at Hindus.
This is not a religion it is practiced in daily life. It has very high moral values and family values. That is the reason why the whole world praises about hinduism. In this country divorces are very less when compared to the other countries of the world. Couple from other countries are getting married according to the hindu rituals. Family is given the first place.
RE:Christianity
by Swami Aravind on Oct 06, 2007 04:55 AM Permalink
There were many different version of Quran . All destroyed and somebody made the current version.
RE:Christianity
by Sarath Chandra on Oct 06, 2007 05:20 AM Permalink
Yes I am aware that there is no connection to the current topic, but when the discussion was at the top jon thomas tries at his best to deviate the topic. Ofcourse, I have posted again to get back to the topic
the countries that support the terrorism in any form against our country are jealous and cannot withstand the development in our country. Killing the people in the name of religion is the worst thing. every person has faith in the religion in which he is broughtup. but some religious leaders use this for bad things. our country has been the victim of terrorism for more than 20 years now. the res of the world either stayed calm or blindeyed to our problems until an attack on twin towers in US. THE 9/11 FOOTAGE SHOCKED ME TOO BUT US HAS WOKEN UP ONLY AFTER IT TOOK DAMAGE. Even most of the countries along with US are facing terrorism. But why is US so cool towards the pakistan. US is buying trouble from pakistan by providing it aid. But what it should understand something about pakistan is it will use the aid against us and US. ISI is another bad agency too. ban it first. baning the terrorist outfits is useless until it's felicitator is destroyed.
RE:bad countries
by farid patel on Oct 06, 2007 06:26 AM Permalink
911 was an inside job. president job consciously knew about the whole attack and involved in it. Terrorism was invented by busy to retain in power. politics of fear....
RE:RE:RE:q
by Chetan on Oct 06, 2007 06:40 AM Permalink
I corroborate with you, Jon. I heard this event of Ram killing an unarmed Shudra. I don't know which version of Ramayana contains this. If you remember Ramanand Sagar's Teleserial, the second stint, Uttar Ramayana did show Ram killing a shudra. No offense meant toward Lord Rama. I do pick up His ideals in life.
Oh converted S...O...B You are frm the gang that says 'I am the last Prophet'. This world will remain for ever and ever and will be there for billions of years. Just one Jesus and one Mohammed is not enough. The world will require a series of them ... one to N.
Now who is going to set right the muslim religion. Even if Mohammed himself comes down once again, these muslims will cut him to pieces. If God decides to send someone else, he will also meet the same fate.
RE:q
by Leeladitya on Oct 06, 2007 05:03 AM Permalink
That's a good point Jon. Don't you think that this observation doesn't gather much applause because it's posted in the wrong section. And out of curiosity(honest) which version of Ramayan is it from? I should admit i didn't read entire ramayan of any version, but it's the first time I came across any such story. It's possible that it was inserted in a tamil or malayalam version as the caste discrimination is relatively higher in these parts of India for atleast last 1000 years i guess.
RE:q
by Leeladitya on Oct 06, 2007 05:12 AM Permalink
And also I wouldn't think Valmiki would have written that. The attitude of that civilization is demonstrated by a fact that Valmiki is highly respected by all the castes. And even the 'UPPER CASTES' respect him consciously being aware that Valmiki by birth is not a 'Brahmin'. As you have many versions of Gospels and Bibles, so do we have different versions of Ramayan.
RE:q
by anirban bandyopadhyay on Oct 06, 2007 06:18 AM Permalink
jon thomas is a liar. I am reading Balmiki Ramayana for last 25 years. I never came across such things. Jon thomas wrote that Ramayana by himself
