PDA

View Full Version : Hate speech of Abrahamics



wundermonk
10 October 2011, 03:01 AM
Here (http://www.churchnewssite.com/portal/?p=18017) is the text of Pope John Paul II's speech in New Delhi in 1999.


Just as the first millennium saw the Cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the Third Christian Millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent.

Planting the cross in Europe, America and Africa involved huge gory bloodbaths. Do we want this in India also?

Will the current Pope issue an apology for PJP2's hate speech in New Delhi of all places calling for the harvesting of Hindus?

Why are the Abrahamics persisting with their falsehood when Adam/Eve never even existed?

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 07:52 AM
wundermonk, you sound to be filled with a bunch of hate yourself. You also confused all "Abrahamics" like that term means something. Maybe you should be a little more open-minded.

I don't know what Adam has to do with any of that, it seems like a large jump. But he was not something made up by the Hebrews. Abraham came from the city of Ur in Sumeria. Sumeria is often regarded as the first civilization in history. The very first writings of this very first civilization talked about a man called Adamu (in Sumeria Adamu meant first man, and in Hebrew Adam means man) who came from a paradise Edin and then started Sumeria by creating agriculture there.

Anyway, that's irrelevant since it really has nothing to do with the beliefs of the various religions. If you want to talk about our beliefs, start with the Ten Commandments and go from there.

wundermonk
10 October 2011, 07:59 AM
Maybe you should be a little more open-minded.
Sumeria is often regarded as the first civilization in history. The very first writings of this very first civilization talked about a man called Adamu (in Sumeria Adamu meant first man, and in Hebrew Adam means man) who came from a paradise Edin and then started Sumeria by creating agriculture there.

Anyway, that's irrelevant since it really has nothing to do with the beliefs of the various religions. If you want to talk about our beliefs, start with the Ten Commandments and go from there.

Open minded doesnt mean our beliefs can be trampled over by non-Hindus. Xians/Muslims have a tendency to do that. As a Jew, I am sorry to say, you have displayed that tendency here also.

No Hindu regards Sumeria as any first civilization. Thats nonsense.

The very first writings/words for us are the Vedas and they do not mention any Adam.

I have no interest in discussing your belief. I am here only to point out the dangers to the Hindu way of life from Xians/Muslims.

If you dislike us here on HDF, why dont you leave? Whats the purpose of your posts here? They come across as rude and disparaging of Hindu belief systems. Why such hatred on YOUR part?

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 08:08 AM
I've never shown any such thing. I keep on saying that I accept other beliefs. I really don't know why you keep on thinking I'm trying to force my beliefs on any one.

But Sumeria being the first civilization is an archeological fact, not a religious one. The Vedas go back to around 1500-1000 BC. Sumeria goes to 5000-4500 BC. The Sumerians had the first writing system that we know of, so it's relevant what they had to say.

wundermonk
10 October 2011, 08:11 AM
The Vedas go back to around 1500-1000 BC.

BS. Thats AIT nonsense and has no place on HDF. Sanatana Dharma is OLDER than Judaism.

I'm done with you.

devotee
10 October 2011, 08:25 AM
Rig Veda has origin older than even 10 thousand BC as an estimate. It is from the time when writing was not known to mankind.

OM

ohhcuppycakee
10 October 2011, 08:33 AM
I don't think you should classify thinking all people of the Abrahamic faith as thinking the same way. That is covering billions of people.

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 08:56 AM
Rig Veda has origin older than even 10 thousand BC as an estimate. It is from the time when writing was not known to mankind.

OM

Even if that's true it has nothing to do with Adam. No where is it implied that he is the ONLY person on Earth. But it did seem like he started Sumeria, where Abraham had his origins. I see no reason why attacking him has anything to do with Hinduism.

devotee
10 October 2011, 09:05 AM
I've never shown any such thing. I keep on saying that I accept other beliefs. I really don't know why you keep on thinking I'm trying to force my beliefs on any one.

But Sumeria being the first civilization is an archeological fact, not a religious one. The Vedas go back to around 1500-1000 BC. Sumeria goes to 5000-4500 BC. The Sumerians had the first writing system that we know of, so it's relevant what they had to say.

Have you heard of Indus (Hindu) Valley Civilisation & its recent dating ? When did its writing system originate ? No one knows. This has not been deciphered so far.

OM

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 09:21 AM
Have you heard of Indus (Hindu) Valley Civilisation & its recent dating ? When did its writing system originate ? No one knows. This has not been deciphered so far.

OM

Yes, I know of that. It apparently comes from the cradle of civilization, extending out of Mesopotamia (where Sumeria was). I see no problem, unless you think the Indus Valley is older than Mesopotamia, which I don't believe there's evidence for.

Eastern Mind
10 October 2011, 11:22 AM
I've never shown any such thing. I keep on saying that I accept other beliefs. I really don't know why you keep on thinking I'm trying to force my beliefs on any one.

But Sumeria being the first civilization is an archeological fact, not a religious one. The Vedas go back to around 1500-1000 BC. Sumeria goes to 5000-4500 BC. The Sumerians had the first writing system that we know of, so it's relevant what they had to say.

Vannakkam: You really don't see the contradiction in these two paragraphs, do you? (not forcing my beliefs, then stating your beliefs)

Aum Namasivaya

PatrickMB
10 October 2011, 11:43 AM
Here (http://www.churchnewssite.com/portal/?p=18017) is the text of Pope John Paul II's speech in New Delhi in 1999.



Planting the cross in Europe, America and Africa involved huge gory bloodbaths. Do we want this in India also?

Will the current Pope issue an apology for PJP2's hate speech in New Delhi of all places calling for the harvesting of Hindus?

Why are the Abrahamics persisting with their falsehood when Adam/Eve never even existed?

******************************

To answer your question, Wondermunk, No, the present Pope will NOT apologize for his predecessor's insulting remarks. When it comes to Christian chauvisnism, they are two-of-a kind. Never except a Christian to apologize for insulting other faiths.

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 11:52 AM
Vannakkam: You really don't see the contradiction in these two paragraphs, do you? (not forcing my beliefs, then stating your beliefs)

Aum Namasivaya

I didn't realize you thought the Vedas were older than the Sumerians. There's a difference between facts and beliefs. Beliefs are about spiritual things. But the archeological story says that India came out of Mesopotamia. I didn't realize Indians didn't accept that.

If not, then why not?

Mana
10 October 2011, 11:54 AM
Namasté Tikkun Olam,

There was script on tablet looong ago (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/23/scientist-smackdown-ancient-indian-hieroglyphs-or-just-pretty-pictures/). Maybe Moses brought back this technology from his wanderings to distant mountains???

No wonder the debate is heated!

Despite attempts to pervert the perception of history and create a new one (The Brits and Catholics). It has been realised that the suspected Aryan invasion of the Indus valley did not bring so much to India, Tablets depicting, a man, possibly a depiction of ziva in a yoga posture leads one to the conclusion that the vedic literature comes from verbal tradition here and not as proposed by the European philosophers who have wanted to claim it as their own (see Aryan invasion theory). Here is another interesting article. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/6584160/Indus-Valleys-Bronze-Age-civilisation-had-first-sophisticated-financial-exchange-system.html)

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/94737_f260.jpg


Indus Valley's Bronze Age civilisation 'had first sophisticated financial exchange system'

The Indus Valley's Bronze Age civilisation may have developed the world's first sophisticated system of wage labour, financial exchange and measurement, a Canadian mathematician has discovered.



By Dean Nelson in New Delhi

6:00AM GMT 17 Nov 2009


The Telegraph


10 oct 2011

The evidence is very strong, It would appear that The roots of agriculture "yoga" meaning yolk in Sanskrit. the yolk would have lead to two major developments. The harnessing of two or more cattle together, also to carry weights, thus also as a balance to weigh! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale)


The oldest evidence for the existence of weighing scales dates to c. 2400-1800 B.C.E. in the Indus River valley (modern-day Pakistan). Uniform, polished stone cubes discovered in early settlements were probably used as weight-setting stones in balance scales. Although the cubes bear no markings, their weights are multiples of a common denominator. The cubes are made of many different kinds of stones with varying densities. Clearly their weight, not their size or other characteristics, was a factor in sculpting these cubes.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale#cite_note-1) In Egypt, scales can be traced to around 1878 B.C.E., but their usage probably extends much earlier. Carved stones bearing marks denoting weight and the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for gold have been discovered, which suggests that Egyptian merchants had been using an established system of weight measurement to catalog gold shipments and/or gold mine yields. Although no actual scales from this era have survived, many sets of weighing stones as well as murals depicting the use of balance scales suggest widespread usageThis civilisation was interesting as evidence points to an egalitarian people who did not have any apparent separation of wealth and status; all houses were of the same size, there were no palaces.

All interesting archaeology.



Why does this all feel like a game of snakes and ladders? :)

praNAma

mana

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 12:17 PM
Namasté Tikkun Olam,

There was script on tablet looong ago (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/23/scientist-smackdown-ancient-indian-hieroglyphs-or-just-pretty-pictures/). Maybe Moses brought back this technology from his wanderings to distant mountains???

praNAma

mana

No one claimed the Hebrews were the first to write. Usually that is given to the Sumerians with Cuneiform. And then later the Egyptians with hieroglyphs. When the Hebrews were working under the Pharaoh Amenemhet III they deviated from the pictorial writing system to the alphabetic one, with their first alphabetic writing found in the Sinai desert at this time, on rocks alongside Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Those engravings are claimed to be about 4000 years old. Cuneiform is still 5000 years old, so if the Vedas do come from this time, they are younger than Sumerians. If you think the Vedas are older than that, then why?

Jainarayan
10 October 2011, 12:28 PM
Sumerian is the first attested writing. Humans have been speaking, without writing, for 150,000 to 200,000 years. Humans colonized most of the world by about 12,000 BCE. Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia about 40,000 years ago and have an oral tradition going back that far, all of it spoken (or sung).

There's no reason, then, to doubt that the Vedas were spoken (actually sung: there is some evidence that early Vedic Sanskrit was very musical and melodic) 10,000 years BCE or even earlier.

It's possible they were transcribed only 3,500 years ago. But the history of the Vedas, and most oral traditions shows that great care was taken to preserve and pass them down without deviation. After all, this is what the rishis did for a living. There's no reason to believe the Vedas "appeared" only around 1,500 BCE.

devotee
10 October 2011, 12:35 PM
So, India came out of Mesopotamia ? Who wrote this history ... of course the westerners, right ?

Mesopotamia is dated between 3500 to 530 BCE. According to recent study made in Mehragarh of Indus Valley Civilisation, it dated 7000 BCE (Aceramic Neolithic). However, these are just estimates based on Carbon dating of things which were found intact ... but it doesn't prove that it can't be even older !

Again invention of writing has nothing to do with the age of the Vedas as the Vedas were originally passed on orally to the students by the seers. Again, if you see the markings on the seals of Indus valley civilisation, it can be very well understood that the people at time could very well read and write ... but see the arrogance of your westerner "scholar" who gave their fatwa that it was zero chance that they were literate ! After all, how these people could digest that any other civilisation was more knowledgeable than theirs. They have to somehow prove that all knowledge came from the WEST ! ... and that is how the idea of Aryan Invasion Theory was sold shamelessly which has now been thoroughly rejected.

OM

Spiritualseeker
10 October 2011, 12:50 PM
Sanatana Dharma is the oldest. This is not based on a dogma or sect. Sanatana Dharma is not a sect, religion, or any thing that causes splitting up into divisions of believers and heretics. The path of many forms of worship, meditation, and so on in India arose out of the hunter gatherers who later birthed the way of life of the Dharma. For the sake of argument if we want to say Sumeria was the oldest, that still would not prove anything concerning jewish knowledge. Sumerians were pagans, Adamu were slaves of their gods who served their gods. The story of Noah comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The early jews worshipped God alongside the Goddess Asherah. The garden of Eden are from traditions that are as pagan as pagan can get. So where does one get the idea that Judaic knowledge is really something we should glorify? It is nothing but a knock off of existing pagan cultures that existed. The same is obvious with Christians and the Jesus knock off of multiple sacrificial deities of the pagans.

Why follow a path that comes from paganism and yet claims paganism is evil? The only reason I can find is human arrogance.

Om Namah Shivaya

Mana
10 October 2011, 12:52 PM
Those engravings are claimed to be about 4000 years old. Cuneiform is still 5000 years old, so if the Vedas do come from this time, they are younger than Sumerians. If you think the Vedas are older than that, then why?

Namasté Tikkun Olam

It says here 3Oth century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform)

My interest is in the evolution of philosophy and Doctrine, I believe that Human intelligence is delivered by insight from God, that it is fractal by nature so it happens spontaneously and repetitively over distance. Ie fire is harnessed at around the same time at several locations. It is due to the nature of God that this occurs.

The harnessing of the Fire of kundalini is another story!

praNAma

mana

Mana
10 October 2011, 12:56 PM
If you think the Vedas are older than that, then why?

Namasté Tikkun Olam

Do you have any notion as to transcendental knowledge?
Time is not linear, can you see this?

See ΔT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94T) just as a starting point.

praNAma

mana

Eastern Mind
10 October 2011, 12:58 PM
I didn't realize Indians didn't accept that.



Vannakkam: Well, now you do. That's a start. :) History is full of debate. I live in Canada, and the aboriginal (First nations peoples) don't accept the Bering Strait migration theory either.

Personally, I take ALL history with a grain of salt. All you need to do is read two accounts of the same Battle in a War, the two accounts being the two sides. Or listen to two accounts of a playground fight between children Often in an argument both sides claim victory.

After all, what is history, besides peoples' accounts of it?

Aum Namasivaya

Mana
10 October 2011, 12:59 PM
Namasté Tkkun Olam

What of Scales and money? Interesting thoughts you must admit?


praNAma

mana

Kumar_Das
10 October 2011, 06:05 PM
I've never shown any such thing. I keep on saying that I accept other beliefs. I really don't know why you keep on thinking I'm trying to force my beliefs on any one.

I will agree that as jew its unlikely that you will proselytize. I will say wundermonk has been overreacting.

What I also find unusual is that a jew will come on Hindu forums and instead of just leaving at what we have to say will engage in discussion and state his own points. I have doubts that you are a jew.

Kumar_Das
10 October 2011, 06:09 PM
Vannakkam: You really don't see the contradiction in these two paragraphs, do you? (not forcing my beliefs, then stating your beliefs)

Aum Namasivaya

Yeah exactly. Odd for a jewish person to do that to non-jews.

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 06:11 PM
I will agree that as jew its unlikely that you will proselytize. I will say wundermonk has been overreacting.

What I also find unusual is that a jew will come on Hindu forums and instead of just leaving at what we have to say will engage in discussion and state his own points. I have doubts that you are a jew.

The view of history here is very surprising to me and I didn't even realize my initial post was controversial, I thought the dates of 1500-1000 BC were just generally accepted. People did tell me why they think it's older and I left it at that. I'm not going to argue with it.

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 06:16 PM
Namasté Tkkun Olam

What of Scales and money? Interesting thoughts you must admit?


praNAma

mana

I don't know what to make of it. I know the Egyptians sold things with gold and silver, but I don't think they had coins or anything until later. I don't know much about where money start. I'm also not sure of the history of the scales...

I think languages are just more interesting to me. Maybe it would be more interesting if I knew of more history for things like scales/money to follow them.

Eastern Mind
10 October 2011, 06:19 PM
The view of history here is very surprising to me and I didn't even realize my initial post was controversial, I thought the dates of 1500-1000 BC were just generally accepted. People did tell me why they think it's older and I left it at that. I'm not going to argue with it.

Vannakkam: It just means Witzel and his cronies have been tampering with Wikipedia .... again. :) Note this: However, later Max Muller himself admitted the purely conjectural nature of the Vedic chronology, and in the last work published shortly before his death, The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, he admitted: 'Whatever may be the date of the Vedic hymns, whether 1500 or 15 000 BCE, they have their own unique place and stand by themselves in the literature of the world'

Aum Namasivaya

Friend from the West
10 October 2011, 06:56 PM
Namaste,
EM, I certainly have learned to agree with Mr. Muller's statement. Also, agree that history has been proven to be a slippery thing. It gets influenced by many things, most especially vested interests.
Regarding the date you attribute to Vedas, Tikkun Olam, please refer back to Mr.Muller's statement but also consider other sources giving older dates, and I presume from your tradition, you respect oral tradition. Additionally, to the best of my abilities through research, followers of SD do not spend so much time and resources in the "search" that those of Judaism and Christianity do. So whether it be geological or archaelogical, think going to find a disproportionate amount of scholorship that supports these two traditions. Once again, vested interests come into play.
Tikkun, think you may find struggles here from standpoint of where you are coming from. As many of my friends here have helped me with, the influence of the cultures we are raised in are so continually powerful and pulling. I come from a adult career in dealing with evidence. To me, you appear to be coming from that framework. I am blessed and humbled to look forward to bowing down to Hanuman (if not familiar please look up) as the epitome of one (a God) who serves God. Ask me to explain that from a evidentiary standpoint. :cool1:
Peace.
FFTW

yajvan
10 October 2011, 07:07 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I see this string is easily heating up. For this I will limit my words.

The veda-s are being spoken of
One must be aware that any date that is put on them is folly. They are eternal. If they end up in a book , fine. If that book burns today are the veda-s gone ? If I take a physics book and burn it today , are those laws that are outlined by some of the most noble scientists and discoverers gone ? No, all those laws still exist. All the formulas still exist. Like that , the veda-s are eternal.

Yet they ( the veda-s) require a clarity of consciousness to be in tune with them so one comes to know them. Hence they are here today, a million years from today, a billion years ago they still where here.

Who came first ?
This me thinks is like saying my dad can beat up your dad. Does it really matter ? Does one's chest puff-up more if one is 1st or 2nd in line ?
Today the archaeologists find a bone and say its from 15,000 years ago; tomorrow a new bone is found and it dates to 25,000 years ago. The ~final say ~ is still being dug up.

Yet, that said, if we look to our itihāsa-s ( history) a thousand years is a drop in the bucket. Bharata is ancient (purāṇa - belonging to ancient times).


praṇām

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 08:05 PM
I am blessed and humbled to look forward to bowing down to Hanuman (if not familiar please look up) as the epitome of one (a God) who serves God. Ask me to explain that from a evidentiary standpoint. :cool1:
Peace.
FFTW

Okay, go for it.

charitra
10 October 2011, 08:39 PM
Western intellectuals, including our own contemporary ones livingamong us today, have spent time and energy to understand and interpret the sanskrit scriptures without any underlying agendaother than pure academic curiosity. For example Dean Brown explains the meaningof Polytheism in the backdrop of Brahman, and to me it sounds intriguing. Hefurther draws parallels to deva and divine etc. Nicholas Kazanas ("RigVeda is the oldest document of Humanity"), a Sanskrit scholar on the otherhand assigns Mahabharata epic an era before 3,500 BCE. Since Sanatanadharma is many millennia older than Mahabharata, one can thus draw conclusionsthat it deserves its name . Watch these footage if your time permits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkmLEbsU-9k&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkmLEbsU-9k&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apWuGn5eHCY&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apWuGn5eHCY&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvr_jlXO8YQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvr_jlXO8YQ)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=pEYYmyZmuCU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=pEYYmyZmuCU)

Friend from the West
10 October 2011, 08:49 PM
Namaste,
Tikkun Olam,
Sir, I did attempt to approach you in respectful manner and attempted to see you as someone who was as they said they were. My last comment was not so much to share how I approach the Divine, but to better help you understand that the thinking is perhaps different than what you have been immersed in. I attempted to help show that approaching an understanding from a purely evidentiary (what a subjective thing that is) standpoint will do you little good in discussions. In other words, if your intent is true, you should be able to see that your comments were not being well received. The intent was to be helpful and certainly not meant to be condescending.
Regarding your response, I shall indeed go for it, again and again, as long as I am permitted. What I said to you was an attempt at something that appears to have been an unsuccessful attempt to help. What you said I will interpret as an off the cuff response but is seen as insulting to the God that I worship.
Additionally, regarding your response, I am but a humble visitor to this HDF who has been invited to share, to learn, and even to care, with the members here. We are also a protective community. Your comments thus far as well as to me, do not bode well from an evidentiary standpoint in showing that you are a open minded seeker.
I can not speak for everyone here, but you are most welcome here because I have been welcomed and people have put up with a lot from me and the search for the Eternal Path supercedes all of our egos. Having said this, your tone appears as one who is attempting to riducule in somewhat subtle manner versus as if someone who came here with open and seeking mind. I hope I am wrong and you are a part of this HDF for along time.
Peace Tikkun Olam.

Tikkun Olam
10 October 2011, 09:30 PM
You said "ask me" to explain Hanuman, so I did. I didn't realize you were being sarcastic.

Friend from the West
10 October 2011, 09:46 PM
Namaste,
T.O.,
I may have erred in communication. No, not being saracastic. I would never be sarcastic in regard to Sri Hanuman. I will not speak for others, just trying to say in first post that "direct evidence" that you allude to is much polluted and over hyped. There was humor attempted at evidence, not at Sri Hanuman. The remainder of post I think was self evident.
Peace to you.
FFTW.

Ramakrishna
10 October 2011, 11:46 PM
The view of history here is very surprising to me and I didn't even realize my initial post was controversial, I thought the dates of 1500-1000 BC were just generally accepted. People did tell me why they think it's older and I left it at that. I'm not going to argue with it.

Namaste Tikkum Olam,

The view of history here is surprising to you because you have only been exposed to western/Abrahamic-biased sources on history. The only thing I will say is that if you are truly interested in learning about Sanatana Dharma in an authentic, unbiased way then you must realize that the Aryan Invasion Theory is completely false. I'm not sure how familiar you are with it, but here is a great source that debunks it: http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

Jai Sri Ram

devotee
10 October 2011, 11:48 PM
Vannakkam: It just means Witzel and his cronies have been tampering with Wikipedia .... again. :) Note this: However, later Max Muller himself admitted the purely conjectural nature of the Vedic chronology, and in the last work published shortly before his death, The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, he admitted: 'Whatever may be the date of the Vedic hymns, whether 1500 or 15 000 BCE, they have their own unique place and stand by themselves in the literature of the world'

Aum Namasivaya

Excellent points Eastern Mind ! The problem with Olam appears to be that he feels that whatever is written in a book in the name of history is the Truth ! Everyone knows that history, the unwritten ancient history has been a matter of intense debate on what is really authentic. This is because there is no authentic record which can be relied upon by everyone. It is some evidence ... some lose links ... and the rest is the story from the person/people who write that history.

Olam says that India came out of Mesopotamia (a geographically foolish statement) ! Now, Mesopotamia has been a recognised very ancient civilisation & so is the Indus Valley but I nowhere read that India or Indus Valley civilisation "came out of" Mesopotamia. There is one thing which has been kept uncontaminated & that is belief systems in the two civilisation on which there is hardly any dispute. Everyone knows that the assertion that there is One God which alone is worshiped in different names (claimed in the Rig Veda) is completely unique when we compare the Hindu belief system, Egyptian's belief system & Mesopotamian belief system (the great civilisations).

OM

sanjaya
14 October 2011, 01:23 AM
No one claimed the Hebrews were the first to write. Usually that is given to the Sumerians with Cuneiform. And then later the Egyptians with hieroglyphs. When the Hebrews were working under the Pharaoh Amenemhet III they deviated from the pictorial writing system to the alphabetic one, with their first alphabetic writing found in the Sinai desert at this time, on rocks alongside Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Those engravings are claimed to be about 4000 years old. Cuneiform is still 5000 years old, so if the Vedas do come from this time, they are younger than Sumerians. If you think the Vedas are older than that, then why?

Hi TO. As far as I'm aware, secular historians do indeed date the Vedas to 1500 BC or so. We, however, tend to believe that our religious history is far more ancient than this. Sri Krishna, for example, is believed to have lived around 3000 BC. Some interpretations of Hinduism that I've heard even suggest that Indian civilization is millions of years old. Even I, a Hindu born and raised, find this to be a bit absurd. But I do believe it is reasonable to suggest that our Indian civilization is far older than the historians would allow.


The view of history here is very surprising to me and I didn't even realize my initial post was controversial, I thought the dates of 1500-1000 BC were just generally accepted. People did tell me why they think it's older and I left it at that. I'm not going to argue with it.

In itself I don't think the comment is controversial. Indeed, I'm a bit discouraged by the cold reception you've recieved, since I've always thought of Hindus and Jews as natural friends. However, we usually don't have that great of an experience with Abrahamics in general. After all, historically we've experienced political oppression from Muslims, and a far more deterimental spiritual war from the Christians. Perhaps because both of these religions spring from Judaism, many Hindus are quick to associate Judaism with these other religions, and interpret challenges to the historical claims of our faith antagonistically.

I've usually had positive religious exchanges with Jews, and have a somewhat different bias in this regard. So I take your questioning as a genuinely academic pursuit. I can't comment intelligently on the faithful transmission of Hindu texts through the ages. What I can say is that Hinduism is based less on Scripture than most other religions, and I think it is fairly uncontested that Hinduism has been the dominant religion in India for several thousand years. In this sense Vedic religion is the oldest surviving faith in the world, regardless of how old our surviving Scriptural manuscripts are.

Jainarayan
14 October 2011, 10:22 AM
Sri Krishna, for example, is believed to have lived around 3000 BC.

And Lord Rama's reign lasted 10,000 years, pre-dating Sri Krishna's appearance. So right there we're going back at least 15,000 BCE for an extensive kingdom.

Sahasranama
14 October 2011, 11:11 AM
Hi TO. As far as I'm aware, secular historians do indeed date the Vedas to 1500 BC or so. We, however, tend to believe that our religious history is far more ancient than this. Sri Krishna, for example, is believed to have lived around 3000 BC. Some interpretations of Hinduism that I've heard even suggest that Indian civilization is millions of years old. Even I, a Hindu born and raised, find this to be a bit absurd. But I do believe it is reasonable to suggest that our Indian civilization is far older than the historians would allow.This has very little to do with history, but with an eurocentric bias. The early indologists simply ignored evidence and instead used the Bible as a reference of how old the world is. That is how they came up with dates for the history of the Indian civilisation. From an evidence based historical perspective the vedic civilisation is at least 10.000 years old.

Indians have always used a cyclical frame of history which was also adopted by the Greeks and Romans. The linear frame of history is what is considered as normal in most places of the modern world, so anything that deviates from this would sound absurd to most people.


And Lord Rama's reign lasted 10,000 years, pre-dating Sri Krishna's appearance. So right there we're going back at least 15,000 BCE for an extensive kingdom.We are around 5,000 years in kali yuga. Rama appeared in treta yuga which came before dvapara yuga lasting 864,000 years. Treta yuga lasted 1,296,000 years. So Rama appeared on this earth between 890,000 years and 2,186,000. There may be given a more specific date in the shastras. A million years is hard to imagine, but it is only 10.000 centuries or a thousand millenia.

Jainarayan
14 October 2011, 11:28 AM
We are around 5,000 years in kali yuga. Rama appeared in treta yuga which came before dvapara yuga lasting 864,000 years. Treta yuga lasted 1,296,000 years. So Rama appeared on this earth between 890,000 years and 2,186,000 years ago according the itihasas and puranas. A million years is hard to imagine, but it is only 10.000 centuries or a thousand millenia.

Thanks. :)

My "at least 15,000 years" has Lord Krishna's appearance coming right on the heels of Lord Rama's reign. As you point out, there was a lot of time between. The numbers are mind boggling for this little human brain to comprehend. So, this one will defer to faith and his betters in theological matters. ;)

yajvan
14 October 2011, 05:35 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I can tell you without reservation that Hate speech of Abrahamics is not limited to this division of people. They by no means have cornered the market on this blemish. We have found it here ( in the past) on this HDF site.

As with all people residing in duality, there are some good and then there are some that are not so good. The question ( for me) is how to respond.

praṇām

Eastern Mind
14 October 2011, 07:10 PM
Vannakkam: The question is how to respond .... or not respond.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
14 October 2011, 07:28 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Vannakkam: The question is how to respond .... or not respond.


Yes, a 'no response' is the unstuck sound (anirukta, unuttered) - it sends no waves.

praṇām

Sahasranama
14 October 2011, 07:35 PM
It is better that people are honest and stand for something, even if it includes using strong language now and then to make intentions clear. Sometimes that is necessary to shake up people who are highly sanctimonious. Rather than being wishy washy or trying to please everyone, because that is cowardice. Wishy washy people are never humble, since they never take a stance, they'll never have to admit that they were wrong about something (not just publicly, but also to themselves). This attitude reminds me more of politicians than sadhakas. Occasionally stirring up controversy just for the sake of it is also part of sadhana, because this is a practice to not let outer storms effect your inner stability which I will admit I am not perfect at. You will also recognise the people who will get offended when you are not being overly polite and would prefer you to be dishonest to spare their feelings. On HDF people taking a strong stance often get vilified. Even worse discussions that start to get heated get locked before people can even make concessions, revisit their standpoint or come with additional support for their arguments. While discussions that are completely irrelevant to the advancement of understanding Hinduism often are allowed to continue without intervention from the moderators. This has made HDF more a place for chit chatting like a bunch of old wives gathering for tea.

yajvan
14 October 2011, 07:59 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


On HDF people taking a strong stance often get filified.

This is a new word for me... can you use it in an example so I can appreciate its use ?

Thank you,

Sahasranama
14 October 2011, 08:05 PM
This is a new word for me... can you use it in an example so I can appreciate its use ?

...spelling has been corrected. Filified should be vilified.

Mana
14 October 2011, 08:11 PM
Namasté All

I feel it my duty to highlight this word for your consideration and appreciation, it would appear to have bypassed some cognition entirely.


hum·ble

   [huhm-buhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, uhm-] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA adjective, -bler, -blest, verb, -bled, -bling.

adjective

1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.

2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home.

4. courteously respectful: In my humble opinion you are wrong.

5. low in height, level, etc.; small in size: a humble member of the galaxy.




praNAma

mana

Mana
14 October 2011, 08:20 PM
Namasté All

I feel the word fanatic to be of interest to this thread ...

Hate speeches are born fanaticism; irony, is the child of coincidence.


World English Dictionary
fanatic (fəˈnætɪk) http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) — n 1. a person whose enthusiasm or zeal for something is extreme or beyond normal limits 2. informal a person devoted to a particular hobby or pastime; fan: a jazz fanatic — adj 3. a variant of fanatical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanatical) [C16: from Latin fānāticus belonging to a temple, hence, inspired by a god, frenzied, from fānum temple] praNAma

mana

devotee
15 October 2011, 12:08 AM
Namaste Yajvan, Eastern Mind and all,

In my humble opinion, those who don't know how to interact in a civilsed way should have no place on this forum. There are some people who may be coward to even venture out when real time comes but would sound as if they were willing to kill someone or would lay their own life for the Hindus ! We don't know and we are not interested to know.

We are here to learn correctly the spiritual message that our Rishis left for us in our revered Shastras and not for fighting like slum-dwellers. Just spewing venom on a virtual forum like this doesn't make one a Hero.

There have been members who have branded this forum as "too friendly" or a place for "a bunch of old wives gathering for a tea" ... my question is : why are they here, if it doesn't suit them ? Let Satay and other moderators decide what this forum wants. If this is a place for using foul language and fighting like worst of human beings ... I have no place on this forum. I won't come back, if I realise this ever. If it is for sharing spiritual knowledge with dignity and respect towards all who are genuinely interested in spiritual knowledge, then let's maintain this forum like that ... and thanks to our moderators, I am happy to say that it is being maintained like that. Satay deserves all praise for this difficult job.

There are many forums on the Internet where there is full freedom for mud-slinging, using abusive languages and showing the ugliest part of one's character ... those who feel that this forum is not allowing them to behave in the manner they want ... I don't think there is a dearth of forums for them on the Internet.

OM

Jainarayan
15 October 2011, 03:15 PM
Namaste devotee.


If this is a place for using foul language and fighting like worst of human beings ... I have no place on this forum. I won't come back, if I realise this ever.

Your entire post is well said. I for one would hate to see you leave. :( I too have been guilty, though unintentionally, of participating in slugfests. It's my often-misunderstood sense of humor, and I get called out on it. A lot! :rolleyes:

Learning isn't only about the theology and ins-and-outs of our faith, but learning about each other and how we react, and tolerance. We converts could learn from Hinduism For Dummies or Wikipedia, not that it hasn't been a big help; it has. But those learning avenues just aren't the same; they are dry and missing the human element and exchanges found here.
:grouphug:

OK, so now I'm rambling... :o

yajvan
15 October 2011, 04:06 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




We are here to learn correctly the spiritual message that our Rishis left for us in our revered Shastras and not for fighting like slum-dwellers. Just spewing venom on a virtual forum like this doesn't make one a Hero. There have been members who have branded this forum as "too friendly"
OM

I think your post and words have merit. Courage is high the further one is away from the opponent!

If we are too friendly, I applaud that. How much more grief do we need in this world then to add more ?

If this friendly environment is not stuitable for those that wish to engage in jalpa and high rage disputes, I am sure there are plenty of forums that can accomodate them, no ?

The forum has always been about quality and not quantity of members. For those that leave we wish you the best - for those that stay, we are in hopes the forum uplifts you in some way.

praṇām

Sahasranama
15 October 2011, 04:28 PM
We are here to learn correctly the spiritual message that our Rishis left for us in our revered Shastras and not for fighting like slum-dwellers. Just spewing venom on a virtual forum like this doesn't make one a Hero. There have been members who have branded this forum as "too friendly"
OMToo friendly? That is a great way to compliment yourself, but I never said that. What I said was sanctimonious.

I have spend too much time on this forum already. Quality is hard to find here.

sm78
15 October 2011, 11:36 PM
It is better that people are honest and stand for something, even if it includes using strong language now and then to make intentions clear. Sometimes that is necessary to shake up people who are highly sanctimonious. Rather than being wishy washy or trying to please everyone, because that is cowardice. Wishy washy people are never humble, since they never take a stance, they'll never have to admit that they were wrong about something (not just publicly, but also to themselves). This attitude reminds me more of politicians than sadhakas.

This is absolutely correct. Those who stand for something are much much better people than those who don't, don't have any strong view points about anything and are generally wanting to appear wise before all sides. This is basic psychology and also a spiritual fact. It is as simple as being honest.


Occasionally stirring up controversy just for the sake of it is also part of sadhana, because this is a practice to not let outer storms effect your inner stability which I will admit I am not perfect at.
I have never heard of this sadhana. You can always pick up a battle which will test your inner strengths, no need to rake up stuff.



You will also recognise the people who will get offended when you are not being overly polite and would prefer you to be dishonest to spare their feelings.
True. But as an example, I don't get offended with strong opinions or language, I use them quite a bit. But your banned friend when confronted with counter arguments just comes down to literal abuse which I find no way to reply back. Inability to reply back with valid points and only with abuses, unable to take any personal criticism while dishing it out in plenty at every opportunity is not a sign of sadhak of any level, but just a ruffian and crazy person who can type on internet. Hindu nationalism is not a holy grail , so that just because one appears to drink from it makes him holy. Foul persons are just foul persons.


On HDF people taking a strong stance often get vilified.
Not by everyone, and we can make it better by increasing our participation sharing original viewpoints and defend them with strength, not trying to appease everybody. But those who profess to hold to strong viewpoints must be able to take strong criticisms and opposition. They cannot behave like winy, mis-behaved and abusing little brat every time they find the world disagrees with them. When you talk about strong opinions, respect the ability to be strong against criticism and defeat.


In the end the idea is to stand for something bigger than one's ego - truth. Just picking up one ideology (Hindutva) against another (Universalism) doesn't make one better than other.

devotee
16 October 2011, 02:02 AM
Namaste Yajvan ji,


The forum has always been about quality and not quantity of members.

That is what makes this forum different from other available internet sites. The credit goes to all moderators and the esteemed forum members. My daughter sometimes teases me, "You just waste your time on the internet a little too much". I say, "This forum is a little different".

This forum is a little different & I pray to God that it maintains its status even in the coming years.

*****************
Namaste TBTL,

A Hindu is a Hindu ... that is all ... let's drop our habit of labeling one as "convert" etc. The way you are learning fast (even Grammar of Sanskrit) ... I am seeing another valuable member on this forum like Yajvan, Eastern Mind, NayaSurya, Sunyata etc. (the so called converts) in the making ! :)

Thanks for the Group-hug ! It was needed. :)

OM

******************
Namaste Sm78,

Thanks for your well balanced view ! :)

OM

Sahasranama
16 October 2011, 05:56 AM
You make very good points sm78, people can take it too far and I have often tried to talk some sense into TTA to calm down. I saw his efforts more like "cleaning up the trash," so that other people can spend more time on serious discussions. I personally don't like to talk about this nonsense, so on that level I appreciated the crazy comments which would make trolls go away and leave us with more time to talk about important subjects. Now he is banned again, I feel this gap has to be filled by the moderators in a more civilised manner of course.

I have posted this video (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/17/dont-be-a-dick-part-1-the-video/) before on the forum, but it was deleted by the moderators. I absolutely don't think that being too friendly is a problem. It's more the sanctimoniousness that I have a problem with, for example the moderators deleting a video with a great message like this, because it uses a "bad word."

I have gone too far myself too on several occasions and made some ad hominem attacks and snappy comments here on the forum. If anyone was offended by my words, I would like to apologise for that.



I have never heard of this sadhana. You can always pick up a battle which will test your inner strengths, no need to rake up stuff. It is mentioned in the yoga vasishta. I personally don't consider the yoga vasishta as an authoritive text, but I know that yajvan and TTA liked the text a lot.



In the end the idea is to stand for something bigger than one's ego - truth. Just picking up one ideology (Hindutva) against another (Universalism) doesn't make one better than other. Yes, you are right. I don't put myself in either camp. The funny thing is that some Hindutva people are actually universalists. Radical Universalism was defined by David Frawley and Dr. Frank Morales, they have made some good points against Universalism, but of course their words are not gospel.

sm78
16 October 2011, 06:28 AM
It is mentioned in the yoga vasishta. I personally don't consider the yoga vasishta as an authoritive text, but I know that yajvan and TTA liked the text a lot.
Thanks. I' also don't have any specific interest in that book.


Yes, you are right. I don't put myself in either camp. The funny thing is that some Hindutva people are actually universalists. Radical Universalism was defined by David Frawley and Dr. Frank Morales, they have made some good points against Universalism, but of course their words are not gospel.

Yes, especially Frank Morales is quite dubious as to his role in Sanatana Dharma.

Jainarayan
16 October 2011, 09:29 AM
Namaste devotee.


Namaste TBTL,

A Hindu is a Hindu ... that is all ... let's drop our habit of labeling one as "convert" etc. The way you are learning fast (even Grammar of Sanskrit) ... I am seeing another valuable member on this forum like Yajvan, Eastern Mind, NayaSurya, Sunyata etc. (the so called converts) in the making ! :)

Thanks for the Group-hug ! It was needed. :)

OM


You are right about the "convert" thing. I shouldn't use that word because it's not true. I have not converted, I was always Hindu. I think I was in a past life. I was drawn to what I now know as Sanatana Dharma since I was in my early teens, as well as all things Indian. I drove my father nuts as a teenager playing Bangla Dhun on my record player over and over and over. :D I even practiced hatha yoga and tm starting at about age 14. An acupuncturist told me I should find a seniors' yoga class for strength and flexibilty (the "senior" part really hurt).

Jainarayan
16 October 2011, 09:44 AM
Namaste Sahasranama.


I saw his efforts more like "cleaning up the trash," so that other people can spend more time on serious discussions. I personally don't like to talk about this nonsense, so on that level I appreciated the crazy comments which would make trolls go away and leave us with more time to talk about important subjects.

I know his intentions are/were good. Sometimes it's counter-productive, though. You know the saying "don't feed the trolls". They sit back at their keyboards and laugh at how the person responding to them gets worked up. And have you noticed how they make the regular members turn on each other?

Then the trolls are gone not because they were run off, even though you may think that's the case, but because they got their jollies. They will move on, or "reincarnate" as yet another one. Sixteen years of playing on the internet makes me realize this (16 years... I need to get a life!).

And please don't misunderstand, I'm not sitting in an ivory tower or on a high horse. I'm just as guilty as the next person of participating in the verbal fisticuffs. What does it get you? Banned from a place you enjoy, and your credibility shot down. Oh yes, and the trolls won.

We have to be better than that, my friends. ;)

Tikkun Olam
17 October 2011, 09:55 AM
Hi TO. As far as I'm aware, secular historians do indeed date the Vedas to 1500 BC or so. We, however, tend to believe that our religious history is far more ancient than this. Sri Krishna, for example, is believed to have lived around 3000 BC. Some interpretations of Hinduism that I've heard even suggest that Indian civilization is millions of years old. Even I, a Hindu born and raised, find this to be a bit absurd. But I do believe it is reasonable to suggest that our Indian civilization is far older than the historians would allow.

In itself I don't think the comment is controversial. Indeed, I'm a bit discouraged by the cold reception you've recieved, since I've always thought of Hindus and Jews as natural friends. However, we usually don't have that great of an experience with Abrahamics in general. After all, historically we've experienced political oppression from Muslims, and a far more deterimental spiritual war from the Christians. Perhaps because both of these religions spring from Judaism, many Hindus are quick to associate Judaism with these other religions, and interpret challenges to the historical claims of our faith antagonistically.

I've usually had positive religious exchanges with Jews, and have a somewhat different bias in this regard. So I take your questioning as a genuinely academic pursuit. I can't comment intelligently on the faithful transmission of Hindu texts through the ages. What I can say is that Hinduism is based less on Scripture than most other religions, and I think it is fairly uncontested that Hinduism has been the dominant religion in India for several thousand years. In this sense Vedic religion is the oldest surviving faith in the world, regardless of how old our surviving Scriptural manuscripts are.

Thanks for the response. Now, the questions that I have asked and brought up on this forum are a result of the kind of culture I've been raised in. We are taught to question everything. It is not out of disrespect that I asked questions- we even question our own religion. There is a famous saying that goes, "For every two Jews, there are three opinions". I challenge my own people as well, that's how we learn. Some of our texts give multiple opinions over a legal disagreement, but often give no final verdict. They encourage the reader to reach his own verdict. I genuinely just wanted people to answer in a convincing way, that is just how I experience things.

And you're right, I thought historically there was never any issue between us. I don't see why there need be. But you did mention something that we're familiar with- you blame us for Christianity/Islam. We're used to people hating us. The anit-Christians charge us with giving birth to the Christians, whereas the Christians charge us with killing Jesus. The former reason was given by the Nazis, "Christianity is just a Jewish conspiracy theory to spread Jewish morals", and the later reason was given by Christians during the Crusades, "They crucified our Christ, they must pay". Of course we couldn't have simultaneously tried to promote and harm Christianity, that's silly. It seems like people also find contradictory reasons to hate us.

Mana
19 October 2011, 05:19 AM
Namaste Tikkun Olam,

sanAtana dhArma, judges no one believing that God is, and all of her derivatives.

What it does teach is that, life reflects back to us that which we project. This force is very powerful function of all. We are always confined by limits, limits which mean reflections or repercussions.

If we are ourselves, Judgemental; we will ourselves be Judged.

This is self evident.

As I have previously stated, I don't believe evil exist unless that is, we see it into existence.

Judgement is a prerequisite or an axiom; thus the scales are loaded, a duality, in which the rules are relative.
and the scale is never quite that precise. (See fractals and infinity).

The pivot of Gods scales are way beyond the reach of man and the scale is not visible, so who is Judging who?

God must surly be Judging him self in a small repetitive loop.

Now this sounds like feedback to me ...

I wish you a beautiful day, Tikkun Olam. I am glad that you are still with us.

praNAma

mana

sanjaya
20 October 2011, 11:10 AM
Thanks for the response. Now, the questions that I have asked and brought up on this forum are a result of the kind of culture I've been raised in. We are taught to question everything. It is not out of disrespect that I asked questions- we even question our own religion. There is a famous saying that goes, "For every two Jews, there are three opinions". I challenge my own people as well, that's how we learn. Some of our texts give multiple opinions over a legal disagreement, but often give no final verdict. They encourage the reader to reach his own verdict. I genuinely just wanted people to answer in a convincing way, that is just how I experience things.

Yes, I'm aware of this tendency in Judaism. In fact I can respect the inquisitive approach to religion and see certain benefits to it, even though I don't take this approach myself. Those Jews who do have faith in God will likely have a very strong faith, since they've come to it via the Socratic method. In Hinduism I think the religious culture is a bit less welcoming of extensive questioning. When I was growing up there weren't any serious discussions of whether we should do puja one way or another, whether God exists, etc. The various rituals were explained to me, but certainly not to my satisfaction. I suppose Hinduism doesn't get as much flack as Christianity or Islam simply because we have no centralized authority or history of religious oppression, and our failure to question authority has never had any direct social consequences.

Which is not to say that I believe questioning my religion is necessarily the best approach for me. After all, if I posit that God exists and that he is sufficiently represented by the Hindu religion (which I do), then who am I to question God?


And you're right, I thought historically there was never any issue between us. I don't see why there need be. But you did mention something that we're familiar with- you blame us for Christianity/Islam. We're used to people hating us. The anit-Christians charge us with giving birth to the Christians, whereas the Christians charge us with killing Jesus. The former reason was given by the Nazis, "Christianity is just a Jewish conspiracy theory to spread Jewish morals", and the later reason was given by Christians during the Crusades, "They crucified our Christ, they must pay". Of course we couldn't have simultaneously tried to promote and harm Christianity, that's silly. It seems like people also find contradictory reasons to hate us.

Yes, it is quite unfortunate that the Jews have historically been hit from both sides in this regard. I'm aware that the rise of Christianity was to the detriment of Judaism, and it certainly did not proceed with any consent from the established Jewish faith. I went through a period in my life when I was pretty interested in Western religion (I assure you that this has long passed), and so I tend to be a bit more knowledgeable about Christianity and its relationship to Judaism than the average Indian Hindu. Because Christianity shares a common scripture with Judaism, it is easy to assume that these religions bear a strong resemblance to one another. Such an assumption would be quite wrong; I might go so far as to say that Christianity is as different from Judaism as it is from Hinduism. Unfortunately it is this mistaken belief which might cause some Hindus to react incorrectly when a Jew raises a challenge to Hindu beliefs. When Christians do this, it's because they want to convert us. When Muslims do so, it's because they seek to undermine Hinduism and turn India into an Islamic theocracy. Jews don't have any ulterior motives that I'm aware of.

For what it's worth, you may be interested to know that India prides itself on being one of the few countries in the world with no history of institutionalized antisemitism. Christianity vilifies Jews because they represent a challenge to Christian doctrinal claims, and Muslims do so because they don't like unbelievers in general. Hinduism contains no seeds for fomenting hatred of Jews or any other religious group.

wundermonk
20 October 2011, 12:21 PM
In Hinduism I think the religious culture is a bit less welcoming of extensive questioning.

Actually, I think it is quite the opposite.

Historically, the Mimamsa Darshana laid a lot of emphasis on Vedic injunctions. The Vedas themselves have a sacrificial overtone beginning from the cosmogonic aspect of the Purusha's sacrifice out of which the universe has emanated.

Our sacrifice in terms of rituals are meant to "repay" and thank the sacrifice of the Purusha. So, each of the rituals/functions that Hindus do has a meaning.

Also, I think Hinduism has IMMENSELY benefitted from complete freedom of enquiry. For this Hinduism owes thanks to Buddhism. Buddhist dialectics forced the Hindu Darshanas to mount vigourous defenses and rebuttals. Everything was questioned and that is why we have the beauty of the diverse nature of Hinduism today. :)

yajvan
20 October 2011, 03:12 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Our sacrifice in terms of rituals are meant to "repay" and thank the sacrifice of the Purusha.

I see your POV yet would suggest there is more then meets the eye with yajña. The yajña that is perfected is fully giving up one's self ( small 's'); This is the limited bounded, restricted self of the relative world. We do this symbolically via pūja as each offering is a gift of giving, an upliftment. Yet the ultimate gift is pouring ( the oblation) of the self into the SELF.

The pouring of self into the imperishable puruṣa. Then one becomes śubraṁ ( radient, shining, clear, spotless, pure). Yet here is the wisdom: this final pouring of the self into the SELF cannot be accomplished by the act of placing and throwing oblations into the fire ( homa). This is a wonderful thing and is uplifting but it does not ( finally) pour the self into the SELF.

Well yajvan who says so ? This is the wisdom of of the muṇḍaka upaniṣad ( 1.2.12). It says nāsti aṛtaḥ kṛtena meaning attaining the 'not made' is never possible by any made-up means. What does that mean? The not made is the imperishable puruṣa , It is called 'not made' because it is infinite and unborn, eternal. It is not reached by made-up means , suggesting action of ritual.

Hence one begins their sādhana to unfold the path to the Supreme.


praṇām

Ganeshprasad
20 October 2011, 06:10 PM
Pranam



Originally Posted by sanjaya http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=73875#post73875)
In Hinduism I think the religious culture is a bit less welcoming of extensive questioning.



Originally Posted by wundermonk http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=73880#post73880)
Also, I think Hinduism has IMMENSELY benefitted from complete freedom of enquiry. For this Hinduism owes thanks to Buddhism. Buddhist dialectics forced the Hindu Darshanas to mount vigourous defenses and rebuttals. Everything was questioned and that is why we have the beauty of the diverse nature of Hinduism today.I find this strange reading the above, it is not that we did not learn anything from Buddhism, but question of asking questions Gita could not be more clearer. Upanisad is all about questions and answers. Not only that we have no compulsion to follow anything we do not understand



tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.3.34

Jai Shree Krishna

sanjaya
20 October 2011, 07:21 PM
I should be clear in saying that I do not believe Hinduism to be particularly unwelcome to extensive questioning. After all, you're not going to have an Inquisition come after you for failing to believe in some particular Hindu teaching, and no one is going to tell you you'll burn in hell or have a fatwa taken out against you. Compared to religions which have a history of oppressive and tyrannical behavior, Hinduism is far superior. It is, however, less welcoming than Judaism in this regard. I can safely say that when I was growing up, my parents would have been horrified if I came out and said that I was an atheist (despite that my mom effectively is one but just won't admit to it). And I'm sure I'm not the only one who got slapped across the face for attempting to get done with a Satyanarayana puja without eating the prasadam. Now, we can spend all day showing PR slides about atheistic schools of thought in Hinduism, dissenting opinions among Vaishnavites and Saivites, and so forth. But at the end of the day, I think most Hindus in India believe in God, and consider it improper to question him. Case in point: whenever a Hindu comes onto this forum claiming to be an atheist and asserting that it is illogical to believe in God, we're quick to jump on him and even accuse him of being a Christian.

I don't even mean to say any of this perjoratively. While I can respect the Jewish approach to religion where people are allowed to be atheists, criticize their own scriptures, and so forth, it's not way I'd like Hinduism to be. I'm not sure how familiar people here are with Judaism, but in branches such as Reform Judaism, there's quite a good deal of leeway in religious practice. I have a Jewish colleague who eats pork. I've got no problem if she wants to do this, but can you imagine Hindus eating beef? My goodness, this is not something I would want Hindus to accept! God is beyond logic and science (heh, and this is coming from the scientist). At some point, a person has to simply stop asking questions and just surrender to God, as Sri Krishna instructs. Heck, if I had kids and they tried to not eat the prasadam or had a burger in their mouth, I'd slap them too. Hinduism is not the sort of religion where militant atheism and ridicule of religious practices is accepted. In that sense we are less open to inquiry than Judaism, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

(PS. I would not be half surprised if most "Hindu" atheists who come here are Christians.)

UniversalLove
20 October 2011, 08:05 PM
Deleted

sanjaya
20 October 2011, 08:47 PM
Well if we want to address the fallacy of guilt by association, it's true that there are good people in every religion. I suppose there were also good people who were members of the Nazi party back in the day. Of course no generalization about a religion can be applied to every single person who claims to be an adherant. But that is not the point we are trying to make here. When we, for example, say that Christianity is an evil religion, we are not saying that all people who call themselves Christians are evil. We are not even saying that all Christian teachings are evil. What we mean is that the Christian religion contains an excess of teachings that are opposed to dharma and right conduct as defined by God. Or to put it another way, Christians who are good people are bad Christians.

Now, I understand that like many good Christians, you want to obey the example of Jesus without placing the Bible in high regard. But please consider this in light of the facts: there are no accounts of Jesus' life except what is found in the Bible and in extracanonical gospels. So how do you follow the example of Jesus without believing in the Bible? Do you reference these extrabiblical gospels?

Or do you pick only the parts of the Bible that contains the words of Jesus? If this is the case, then I've got one more conundrum for you. I think most here will agree that the one teaching which truly poisons Christianity is the belief that people who don't practice their religion will go to an eternal hell. It is the driving force behind all of their discrimination and missionary work. Now here's the problem: the word "hell" as used to describe eternal torment is found thirteen times in the Bible; twelve are from the lips of Christ. What does one do now? Believe that hell is not such a bad teaching after all, or further narrow down the words of Christ to only those words that don't agree with your sensibilities?

If you already know what sort of religion you're looking for, and you narrow down the Bible to those words that agree with your preconcieved notions, then you could just as well apply the same process to any book of sufficient length. Maybe there's no need for the Bible at all.

UniversalLove
20 October 2011, 10:01 PM
Deleted

sanjaya
20 October 2011, 11:16 PM
In case you (or anyone else) are curious as to my opinion on Jesus, I take an agnostic stance, and I think it is a justified one. I've read the Bible, and the New Testament is a very small piece of literature. Of it, we only have four gospels that discuss Jesus; the rest are letters with irrelevant opinions by people who may or may not have known him. Of those four gospels, the material is largely redundant. That leaves precious little knowledge that we can glean from the Bible about Jesus. Compared with texts like the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedas, etc., which give us entire life stories about Hindu religious figures, the Bible says very little about Jesus. That's why there's so much speculation about him. I think this is too little information to form any opinion on him.

Of course I fully respect your right to believe as you wish about Jesus. It's just that I feel you may be reading your own beliefs into the Bible, taking away what happens to agree with you and rejecting what doesn't. For those of us who are religious, it is important to conform to the religion rather than conforming the religion to ourselves. There are many things I too don't understand about Hinduism, and things that I am tempted to outright disagree with. But I do my best not to pick and choose, and instead to adopt Hindu teachings into my way of life. Alas, I don't want to be a meddler in your own spiritual practice, so I'll try not to bug you about this anymore. I tend to have a bad habit of offering unsolicited opinions.

Now as to the issue of judgment and taunting; I think that little good can come of taunting. Cruel behavior is, after all, always adharmic. But as far as judgment goes, I feel that the "judge not, lest you be judged" mentality is used to excuse evil more often than not. It is a Christian doctrine based on the premise that all humans are equally guilty of sin. Thus you should not judge others, for God can find you just as guilty as you find your fellow human. But the premise is faulty: all humans are not equally guilty of sin. And if we passed judgment on nothing, the world would be an amoral place. There are many Christian beliefs and practices which could rightly be judged as evil, and though it is important to state these truths as diplomatically as possible, I feel they must be said nonetheless. Otherwise we risk going down the slippery slope of radical universalism. This is a game that Christians will always win.

However, I feel that your real problem is not the judgment itself, but the impolite attitude with which many of us react to Christians. In this I agree completely, and for my part I will try to adjust my behavior.

wundermonk
20 October 2011, 11:20 PM
Case in point: whenever a Hindu comes onto this forum claiming to be an atheist and asserting that it is illogical to believe in God, we're quick to jump on him and even accuse him of being a Christian.

In my experience, this is not true at all...We have had a few atheists come on here and question us...after a few posts the discussions become boring because we rehash the same arguments again and again without making any headway either way...then each person simply walks away shaking his/her head.

No one here in my experience has accused an atheist of being anything but what he claims he is.:dunno:

wundermonk
20 October 2011, 11:27 PM
I find this strange reading the above, it is not that we did not learn anything from Buddhism, but question of asking questions Gita could not be more clearer. Upanisad is all about questions and answers. Not only that we have no compulsion to follow anything we do not understand

Yes, you are absolutely right. The Upanishads and BG do have a lot of spirit of enquiry and questioning. These are mostly from a theological perspective.

What I implied was that from a purely logical/dialectical perspective, the Hindu darshanas themselves mounted detailed, philosophical and systematic rebuttals to different Nastika schools, probably in response to the philosophies of Jainism/Buddhism.

PrahaladB
20 October 2011, 11:40 PM
Here (http://www.churchnewssite.com/portal/?p=18017) is the text of Pope John Paul II's speech in New Delhi in 1999.



Planting the cross in Europe, America and Africa involved huge gory bloodbaths. Do we want this in India also?

Will the current Pope issue an apology for PJP2's hate speech in New Delhi of all places calling for the harvesting of Hindus?

Why are the Abrahamics persisting with their falsehood when Adam/Eve never even existed?


Hi, the current pope or any Christian will never apologise for this as they beleive that it is their religious duty to spread Christianity. Christians of Indian/Asian origin will not apologise either as they beleive that being Christian makes them more civilised/westernised.

But what shocked me is that the so called defenders of dharma like Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal, etc were all quiet. I mean they go after unarmed teenagers and shopkeepers on valentines day but when it came to this, they didn't even whimper in response.

The reactions of ordinary Indian Hindu's were also shocking, they protested when a bollywood actress (Shilpa Shetty) was supposidelly being racially abused on t.v by burning effigies, but didn't do anything when this European religious leader called for their culture/religion to be erased (as what happened in Europe, Africa, America).

And one wonders why Hindus have a reputation for being soft targets.

Jainarayan
21 October 2011, 10:32 AM
In case you (or anyone else) are curious as to my opinion on Jesus, I take an agnostic stance, and I think it is a justified one. I've read the Bible, and the New Testament is a very small piece of literature. Of it, we only have four gospels that discuss Jesus; the rest are letters with irrelevant opinions by people who may or may not have known him. Of those four gospels, the material is largely redundant. That leaves precious little knowledge that we can glean from the Bible about Jesus.

You know, when I was Christian, raised and initiated in the sacraments, I bought into the stories of Jesus in toto. But now I too am agnostic about him.

What I mean to get at is that it's true there is precious little evidence for the existence of Jesus. The Romans and Greeks wrote about everything. There are even writings about Pontius Pilate; there are recipes and grammars that survive to this day. But no writings about Jesus. In fact, the existence of Nazareth and Capernaum are in doubt.

Maybe he was too insignificant to the Roman writers to write about. Yet if he was the political gadfly portrayed in the gospels, I'd think that the Romans would have documented it.

Whether he existed or not is actually immaterial... someone wrote things in his name. Btw, I think Paul was a fruitcake and had his own agenda, twisting what was supposed to be Jesus's teachings. Christians are not Christians, they are Paulists. They were probably never Christians, taking Paul's writings as the truth. Bogus!!!

Whoever said to love your enemies and pray for them; love God with all your heart, soul and strength; surrender yourself to God, was not far off the mark. The "violent" things he supposedly said (bringing a sword, etc.) were metaphors for the strife that would be caused by following what were in his day radical teachings, going against the accepted standards of the day, i.e. stoning prostitutes and adulterers; an eye for an eye; etc.

I disagree about the "judge not lest ye be judged" issue. Remember, everything Jesus (or whoever) said was in the context of the times. The people of his country were extremely judgmental and self-righteous. I don't think he was saying anything about one person's sins being greater or lesser than others, or using it to excuse another person's wrong-doings. Rather, I think he was saying "keep your mouth shut and mind your own business if you don't want other people in your business". I take it as no more than that. I don't think anything Jesus said is anything more than practical advice. Well heck, even Mark Twain and Ann Landers did that! :D

Of course this is all just my view from having been on the inside, now on the outside and looking in through a different window. Everyone is of course free to believe and practice what they want as long as they do no harm. As the Wiccan Rede says: "An it harm none, do as ye will".

Ramakrishna
21 October 2011, 12:06 PM
Namaste Sanjaya, TBTL, et.al,



In case you (or anyone else) are curious as to my opinion on Jesus, I take an agnostic stance, and I think it is a justified one. I've read the Bible, and the New Testament is a very small piece of literature. Of it, we only have four gospels that discuss Jesus; the rest are letters with irrelevant opinions by people who may or may not have known him. Of those four gospels, the material is largely redundant. That leaves precious little knowledge that we can glean from the Bible about Jesus. Compared with texts like the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedas, etc., which give us entire life stories about Hindu religious figures, the Bible says very little about Jesus. That's why there's so much speculation about him. I think this is too little information to form any opinion on him.




What I mean to get at is that it's true there is precious little evidence for the existence of Jesus. The Romans and Greeks wrote about everything. There are even writings about Pontius Pilate; there are recipes and grammars that survive to this day. But no writings about Jesus. In fact, the existence of Nazareth and Capernaum are in doubt.

Maybe he was too insignificant to the Roman writers to write about. Yet if he was the political gadfly portrayed in the gospels, I'd think that the Romans would have documented it.



Not to digress too far, but I disagree with this agnostic stance and see it a different way. If Jesus really did exist, there would without doubt be widespread documentation of him. Think about it this way, if there really was a man who went around and performed miracles and healed people and preached all this stuff and had thousands of followers and was therefore persecuted and killed, there would have been no doubt of his existence and it would be very well documented. Not to mention that all of this supposedly occurred just about 2,000 years ago, which is fairly recent in the grand scheme of things. As TBTL said, writing was very well developed and in use at that time as well...so there is no excuse.

I really view this agnostic view of Jesus' existence as the "easy way out". The onus was on the people of his time to document and write down everything about him, if such a grand and famous figure really existed. Since the only things they "left" are extremely small, largely redundant pieces of writing, it is clear that this figure really did not exist but rather was the figment of the imagination of a group of Jews at that time who created this religious figure for sociopolitical reasons.

But as I said, this is just my view and opinion on this matter.

Jai Sri Ram

Jainarayan
21 October 2011, 12:48 PM
I used the word agnostic, but to me it's "I can't say [this or that about a subject] because there is no evidence". I think Jesus is one of the very few historical figures about whom there are no contemporary eyewitness accounts. There's the rub, nothing contemporary. Everything written about him came 70-100 years after him by people who used the names of his alleged apostles to lend credibility to the writings. That's like me writing about Joseph Stalin using the pseudonym "Winston Churchill". Stalin was dead at least a decade before I was born. So, 70-100 years? I lean towards the conflation of several historical characters to make up the person of Jesus.

Tikkun Olam
23 October 2011, 09:46 AM
I should be clear in saying that I do not believe Hinduism to be particularly unwelcome to extensive questioning. After all, you're not going to have an Inquisition come after you for failing to believe in some particular Hindu teaching, and no one is going to tell you you'll burn in hell or have a fatwa taken out against you. Compared to religions which have a history of oppressive and tyrannical behavior, Hinduism is far superior. It is, however, less welcoming than Judaism in this regard. I can safely say that when I was growing up, my parents would have been horrified if I came out and said that I was an atheist (despite that my mom effectively is one but just won't admit to it). And I'm sure I'm not the only one who got slapped across the face for attempting to get done with a Satyanarayana puja without eating the prasadam. Now, we can spend all day showing PR slides about atheistic schools of thought in Hinduism, dissenting opinions among Vaishnavites and Saivites, and so forth. But at the end of the day, I think most Hindus in India believe in God, and consider it improper to question him. Case in point: whenever a Hindu comes onto this forum claiming to be an atheist and asserting that it is illogical to believe in God, we're quick to jump on him and even accuse him of being a Christian.

I don't even mean to say any of this perjoratively. While I can respect the Jewish approach to religion where people are allowed to be atheists, criticize their own scriptures, and so forth, it's not way I'd like Hinduism to be. I'm not sure how familiar people here are with Judaism, but in branches such as Reform Judaism, there's quite a good deal of leeway in religious practice. I have a Jewish colleague who eats pork. I've got no problem if she wants to do this, but can you imagine Hindus eating beef? My goodness, this is not something I would want Hindus to accept! God is beyond logic and science (heh, and this is coming from the scientist). At some point, a person has to simply stop asking questions and just surrender to God, as Sri Krishna instructs. Heck, if I had kids and they tried to not eat the prasadam or had a burger in their mouth, I'd slap them too. Hinduism is not the sort of religion where militant atheism and ridicule of religious practices is accepted. In that sense we are less open to inquiry than Judaism, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.


Yes, we have all different kinds of Jews in our communities. We get together every Friday night to eat, and someone gets up to analyze a portion of our scripture (the same portion is studied around the world each week). Not only do I know atheists there, but one week one of the atheists did the speech! He analyzed the part where it asked, "Is God a fair judge?", and his answer was no. I just can't imagine someone like that giving a speech at a church.


For what it's worth, you may be interested to know that India prides itself on being one of the few countries in the world with no history of institutionalized antisemitism.

I am aware of this. (However there was that unfortunate incident in 2008 at the Mumbai Chabad... I knew people who stayed there for several weeks, they said the family was extremely nice...) But I think you're confused if you think antisemitism is religious prejudice. It's not. Jews have not only been persecuted because they are different from other people, they also are persecuted because they try to be the same. In America from about 1920-1950, the immigration laws didn't allow in Jews because, "They could never be assimilated". At the same time, the Germans were saying, "They assimilate too well, they're trying to be like us". *confusion*

Some times in history, such as Spain in 1492, Jews did convert out of fear, but then the ones who converted were still later hunted down. Other times, they weren't given the option, such as with the Nazis- a Jew was a Jew no matter what their beliefs were. If you want a better idea of what goes on in the minds of antisemitics, listen to what came out of Hitler's mouth, "If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it.”

That's not like any other religious persecution. Even the worst of other religious persecutions end if you believe what they tell you to believe. That's just sick.

Friend from the West
24 October 2011, 07:53 PM
Namaste,
Tikkun Olam,
There is just no doubt of the atrocities. It is not mystery of many others feelings. The father of protestantism's, Martin Luther, "The Jews and the Lies" and some of his lesser writings turn my stomach in what it caused during his time and in the 20th century. The "Merchant of Venice" as grand literature disgusts me. If people would listen to Nasser's public speeches there would be no mystery. When he thought he was going to utterly destroy, was honest in his speech. If people do not want to read or listen to their heart, watch any BBC interview of some young Muslim kid on the street of England to see their sentiment. On and on it goes. No magic wand makes this harm less harmful.
Having said this, Sanatana Dharma has the way to answer the problem of us. Humans have seemed to have a way of causing such harm to each other for such really meaningless reasons. This garbage supercedes nationality, ethnicity, religous affiliations, race, etc.. The love for the Supreme supercedes ALL. The reaching of the Supreme is known internally which even overrides other things.
I do not try to insult you with S.D. apologetics because I am not knowledgeable enough to even try nor is it my inclination. I missed welcoming you in Introduction section and we had some dialague already since. Welcome to HDF. Hope you keep looking.
The problem is bigger than atrocities done against one people. Perhaps in different manner, but this propensity to do ugliness is not centered on one "people" only.
Many blessings to you T.O., and good luck.
FFTW.

R Gitananda
25 October 2011, 04:05 AM
Namaste


... The former reason was given by the Nazis, "Christianity is just a Jewish conspiracy theory to spread Jewish morals", ...

Here is another perspective:


In a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book My New Order, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/a/HitlerJesus.htm


Hitler's close friend, Dietrich Eckart, told of overhearing Hitler showing off to a lady by denouncing Berlin in extravagant terms: ". . . the luxury, the perversion, the iniquity, the wanton display and the Jewish materialism disgusted me so thoroughly that I was almost beside myself. I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christ when he came to his Father's Temple and found the money changers."
photos: http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Aum Shanti

sanjaya
25 October 2011, 11:53 PM
Hi Gitananda. So Hitler's Christianity is a really hard thing to pin down. On the one hand he called himself a Catholic and made comments like the one you posted (I'm actually familiar with this particular quote). On the other, he indoctrinated the SS officers into an altered version of Norse religion, which is decidedly not Christian. There are lots of quotes by Hitler in which he extols Christianity. But go to any Christian apologetics website, and there are just as many quotes in which he denounces Christianity. Granted, the Christian apologists are likely to take him out of context to some extent. But the fact remains that Hitler was a charismatic leader who basically said whatever he needed to say to the crowd in front of him to persuade them that killing Jews is in their best interest.

I have no short supply of grievances against Christianity, but I am a bit hesitant to pin the Holocaust on them.

Tikkun Olam
26 October 2011, 11:24 PM
If this is a thread about hate speeches, than you can't find a better example than Hitler!

I think you have to look at the dates. Hitler may have, like most people in the world, changed over time. I think by the 30's and 40's he was no longer a "Christian". The Hitler Youth were chanting, "We wish to be pagans once more!". I don't think Hitler was either a Christian or an atheist though, and I also wouldn't blame the Holocaust on either group. I say I don't think he was an atheist because, although he officially denounced the Ten Commandments as "shackles", he seemed to still have some sort of spiritual side. Here is one place it's expressed;


When over long periods of human history I scrutinized the activity of the Jewish people, suddenly there arose up in me the fearful question whether inscrutable Destiny, perhaps for reasons unknown to us poor mortals, did not, with eternal and immutable resolve, desire the final victory of this little nation.
~Mein Kampf, p.64

Here he demonstrates some sort of understanding of something bigger than himself- outside of this known physical existence. He thought that his way was the right way, but at least in this one place, he showed doubt that he may be wrong. Either way, whether he was right or wrong, he believe in something more.



Friend From the West, I refuse to believe that these sorts of things happen for "meaningless reasons". I say that because of history. There is not much randomness there, and this is not a new concept. Do you know when the first known recording of the word "Israel" was? It was recorded by the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah in 1209 BCE on a war stele claiming, "Israel is laid waste; its seed is no more." That's more than 3 thousand years ago, and it hasn't been an easy 3 millennial since then. If you look at a timeline of events, you can't just say that all these things just happen by accident. Other groups of people, whether ethnic or religious, have been persecuted throughout history. But their time seems to be kept in a bubble, usually restricted to a particular event and for reasons that can be explained satisfactorily (if not still disgustingly).

The only questions is, why do they happen? I think the most well-put explanation I've ever read was written by someone who lived through- and died from- the persecution. I'm talking of the little Jewish girl Anne Frank who spent two years in hiding in Amsterdam, to only die in a concentration camp at the age of 15. She kept a diary during those two years that has since because famous... she wrote;


Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up until now? It is God who has made us as we are, but it will be God, too, who will raise us up again. Who knows it might even be our religion from which the world and all peoples learn good, and for that reason and only that reason do we suffer.
~Diary of Anne Frank, April 11, 1944.

You can agree or disagree if you want. But here, Anne is expressing her belief in a reason for the madness. We don't suffer because the world is blind and random. We don't suffer because we did something to deserve it. We do so because there is some bigger message there. Maybe we don't fully understand it, but if we believe that it prevents the world from descending into complete chaos, then we can take it.

It helps me sleep at night believing that horrible things happen for good reason rather than the world being a cold and random place...

Friend from the West
27 October 2011, 06:53 PM
Namaste,
Greetings to all. Tikkun Olam, I debated whether to respond because your posting struck me as so sincere and personal to you. I respectfully respond to clarify that my reference to meaningless was to the perpetrators rationale and their actions as individuals. I as well do not prescribe to randomness or that world is blind or random in context I think you mean. Beyond this, think we depart in our beliefs in many most important ways.
I wish you well.

Om Shanti.
FFTW

issacnewton
30 October 2011, 11:18 PM
I don't think hitler was encouraging norse religion. the anti-semitism in general
has deep roots in christianity. here are some good posts i found on why hitler's ideology has more to do with christianity.

http://egregores.blogspot.com/2009/12/nazis-christians-and-pagans-oh-my.html

http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/01/christian-nazi-quote-fest-nazis-and.html

http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/01/fascism-nazism-and-freedom-of.html

http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/01/hitler-was-not-occultist-mitch-horowitz.html

http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/02/karla-poewes-new-religions-and-nazis.html

http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/02/rosenberg-chamberlain-harnack-nazis.html

above posts are six part series on nazis, christians and pagans .

What I got from these is that when christians say nazi ideology is pagan,
they are just bluffing. if anybody wants to debate a christian on such issues,
above posts give very good ammunition.

R Gitananda
01 November 2011, 12:49 AM
Hi Sanjaya.

I don't know much about Hitler but if for the sake of argument we assume
that he had no core beliefs of his own and only talked about Christianity
in order to manipulate others, it is still significant that such talk had
resonance with the German population. However few question the
spiritual conviction of the German Martin Luther who Hitler counts
as one of his heroes.



Hi Gitananda. So Hitler's Christianity is a really hard thing to pin down. On the one hand he called himself a Catholic and made comments like the one you posted (I'm actually familiar with this particular quote). On the other, he indoctrinated the SS officers into an altered version of Norse religion, which is decidedly not Christian. There are lots of quotes by Hitler in which he extols Christianity. But go to any Christian apologetics website, and there are just as many quotes in which he denounces Christianity. Granted, the Christian apologists are likely to take him out of context to some extent. But the fact remains that Hitler was a charismatic leader who basically said whatever he needed to say to the crowd in front of him to persuade them that killing Jews is in their best interest.

I have no short supply of grievances against Christianity, but I am a bit hesitant to pin the Holocaust on them.

Tikkun Olam
04 November 2011, 09:31 AM
the anti-semitism in general
has deep roots in christianity.

That's not entirely true. For sure, it existed long before Christianity itself, and it still exists today besides the fact that both religious and racial tolerance is probably the best we've seen in history. I can prove it to you here.


Statements exhibiting prejudice against Jews and their religion can be found in the works of many pagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan) Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece) and Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome) writers.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism#cite_note-12) Edward Flannery writes that it was the Jews' refusal to accept Greek religious and social standards that marked them out. Hecataetus of Abdera, a Greek historian of the early third century BCE, wrote that Moses "in remembrance of the exile of his people, instituted for them a misanthropic and inhospitable way of life." Manetho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manetho), an Egyptian historian, wrote that the Jews were expelled Egyptian lepers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy) who had been taught by Moses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses) "not to adore the gods."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

This existed in the ancient world with the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, several hundred years before there even was Christianity! At the same time, the Persians didn't feel much differently;


There is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom whose customs are different from those of all other people and who do not obey the king's laws; it is not in the king's best interest to tolerate them. If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them.
http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antisemitism/antisemitism01.html

For good measure, here is another one from the Greek writer Cassius Dio;



They [the Jews] are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life, and especially by the fact that they do not honour any of the usual gods, but show extreme reverence for one particular divinity. They never had any statue of him even in Jerusalem itself, but believing him to be unnamable and invisible, they worship him in the most extravagant fashion on earth. 3 They built to him a temple p129that was extremely large and beautiful, except in so far as it was open and roofless,10 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/37*.html#note10) and likewise dedicated to him the day called the day of Saturn [Saturday], on which, among many other most peculiar observances, they undertake no serious occupation.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/37*.html

And the Roman teacher Philostratu;


For the Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against humanity; and a race that has made its own life apart and irreconcilable, that cannot share with the rest of mankind in the pleasure of the table nor join in their libations or prayers or sacrifices, are separate from ourselves by a greater gulf than divides us from Sura or Bactra of the most distant Indies.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/quotes/

These can go on and on. The last one was from the time Christianity was a mere seedling. A tiny unrecognizable bubble, yet this writing surprisingly mentions this "long" period of time, as it was nothing new even then.


I know what you're going to say next. "They hated you because you were different". This is not true. They hated us period, and they used the fact we were different to explain it in hindsight. Here's the hypocrisy;


Some Christians were persecuted in Rome through error, they being "mistaken for Jews." The meaning seems plain. These pagans had nothing against Christians, but they were quite ready to persecute Jews. For some reason or other they hated a Jew before they even knew what a Christian was. May I not assume, then, that the persecution of Jews is a thing which antedates Christianity and was not born of Christianity? I think so.

...

I feel convinced that the Crucifixion has not much to do with the world's attitude towards the Jew; that the reasons for it are older than that event, as suggested by Egypt's experience and by Rome's regret for having persecuted an unknown quantity called a Christian, under the mistaken impression that she was merely persecuting a Jew. Merely a Jew - a skinned eel who was used to it, presumably.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1898twain-jews.asp



Even today in America, a similar thing exists although now it's not because we are trying to be different (America is modeled much more closely to Jewish values than Roman ones, so we're no longer cultural outcasts). I don't know how much people in India follow American current events, but the big topic the past few weeks has been Occupy Wall Street. These have turned recently into riots. When I first saw videos of it, I thought I was watching Greece. It was actually in New York and California. These are people who are now blaming "the 1%" for beating up the other 99%. They blame the banks, the media, and the Federal Reserve. Now, if you speak to them, who is it that control the banks, the media, and the Federal Reserve? WHO, exactly, is the 1% in America who is controlling the rest of them? I will give you one guess.


The Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve -- which is not run by the federal government -- they need to be run out of this country! Jews have been run out of 109 countries throughout history, and we need to run them out of this one.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_hate_in_zuccotti_KyGNaMM6eLBirVJN24fEEP/0


This was not said two millennial ago, it was said two weeks ago.


I have heard the organizers of this Occupy Wall Street thing being interviewed about comments such as this. They don't condemn the comments, rather calling them "free speech". Free speech is letting people say what they want, but then you have a right to come back and say it's wrong. These people won't admit it's wrong. That's what I find scary.






Going back to the original post, I can understand why you don't like the Pope, but he doesn't HATE you. He doesn't want to run you out of your land or exterminate you. He wants you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, because he wants every one to. That's his belief- that he's saving you- but he doesn't treat you differently from anyone else who is not a Christian. It's a purely religious difference between you and him.



The things I listed above cannot be described by religious or cultural persecutions, whether it was the pagans or the Christians.



Friend From the West, do you still disagree with me?

Friend from the West
04 November 2011, 06:57 PM
Namaste,
Tikkun Olam,
I am not intentionally being obtuse. I think I know what you are asking me, but do not want to be mistaken. Please ask your question if it is your will to do so. Please ask so that I do not have to make inference. I will honor you and your question with a response, if that is what you wish.

OM Shanti.
FFTW

Tikkun Olam
10 November 2011, 05:55 PM
Namaste,
Tikkun Olam,
I am not intentionally being obtuse. I think I know what you are asking me, but do not want to be mistaken. Please ask your question if it is your will to do so. Please ask so that I do not have to make inference. I will honor you and your question with a response, if that is what you wish.

OM Shanti.
FFTW

Okay, I will try to make this as lucid as possible.

I can think of three general explanations for the hate and violence;

1) They happen for no reason
2) They happen for a reason
(a) They happen for negative reason
(b) They happen for positive reason

I think that I can thoroughly discredit explanations 1 and 2a in the case of antisemitism. In that case, the explanation is necessarily 2b. This is what Anne Frank also claimed- that it is for this reason, and only this reason, we suffer. I believe this too, which is why I quoted it.

I think this is logical. If I'm not right, then why? Where have I gone wrong, and how can you explain it differently?

Friend from the West
17 November 2011, 08:09 PM
Hari Om Tikkun Olam and to all,

First, Tikkun Olam, I apologize for late response. I saw your post this evening. My intent was not to ignore, especially in light of invitation for you to respond, if this was your wish. Again, for this, I apologize.

In regard to hate and violence perpetrated from one to another, think it does happen for a reason and think ultimately, does happen for a positive reason. In this regard, do not see where we depart.

To be true, these thoughts, among other things, help me to sleep at night as well.

Tikkun Olam, I wish you only peace.

Om Shanti

FFTW

R Gitananda
17 November 2011, 11:19 PM
My thoughts on this are here: http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8517


Okay, I will try to make this as lucid as possible.

I can think of three general explanations for the hate and violence;

1) They happen for no reason
2) They happen for a reason
(a) They happen for negative reason
(b) They happen for positive reason

I think that I can thoroughly discredit explanations 1 and 2a in the case of antisemitism. In that case, the explanation is necessarily 2b. This is what Anne Frank also claimed- that it is for this reason, and only this reason, we suffer. I believe this too, which is why I quoted it.

I think this is logical. If I'm not right, then why? Where have I gone wrong, and how can you explain it differently?