*** Science Or God? ***

[Faun]

Finally a new line of argument.

Not really. The undercurrent between Vaishnavs and Shaivites is pretty strong. You will never see a Vaishnav visiting a Sahivite temple and vice-versa. Also, the birth of these religions came along as criticism against Hinudism or as protest against Brahminism, and all had to withstand the onslaught. Can you explain why Buddhism, which was once the majority religion in India, is virtually non-existence in India.

Yeah, wrangle do happen in a family. But all of them are Hindus only.

My mother is a Shaivite but she also do aarti of Vishnu. So infact the fault lies with people who are too bigot to realize.

Buddhism went down due to a lot of reasons. Mainly it was due to Islamic invasion and destruction of Nalanda University by Khilji. However there were other reasons too. I look forward to its reconstruction which is pending now.

I agree, and always do, that eastern religions are not as bellicose as the abrahamic religions and I have given a very brief reasoning as well - among other things, lack of central authority in most, and influence of Buddhism, as some say. In any case, Vaishnavs actually say what you are accusing other religion of.

Well...you do know that Brahmins have used Hinduism to their advantage for many centuries. They secured their inheritance with caste system (distorted version of Varna) and other means.

Hindus were partly responsible for the evils that crep in it. But its now evolving, and thats what actually matters now.

Actually, Hinduism is also Monotheistic. Just that it hides under several layers of polythiesm, deism, pantheism, henotheism and for an average Hindu, it is virtually impossible to reach to the monotheistic aspect of hinduism. In any case, realizing this monotheistic aspect of Hinduism is all about attaining "moksha".

It encompasses various school of thoughts (there is no single authority over it). There have been people who disregarded beliefs in Vedas and those who believed in it. Duality and non-duality has been in debate by scholars. Some supported materialism and some opted for spiritualism.

In a short deifinition Hinduism is an evolutionary concept which is flexible to change, there are no stedfast rules. I consider it as a way of life more than a religion.

Science has been a mainstay in India during old times because of Indian religions tolerance only. Majority of sanskrit texts are athestic.

Ayurveda, Sulabhsutra, Charak Samhita, Yoga, Kamasutra etc.

Only if it were that simple.

Oh, I am an atheist I believe in materialism.

 

[Faun]

Well, u've efficiently replied to ichi, I've nothing to add more.

But, I think, if they just concentrate on their business and stop poking on neighbor's kitchen they would be happy.
And the main purpose of every religion is stay happy and don't fight.

As long as humans are here we can safely rule out the possibility of eternal peace.

Science has been used as a scapegoat too, all those experiments on humans and animals etc. But science is essential IMO, it has always been in our civilization.

Morality, IMO, comes from within. Though surroundings and circumstances play an important in tilting the weight to evil or good side.

You should be thankful that our civilization has some of the most awesome books written.

 

[karnivore]

Yeah, wrangle do happen in a family. But all of them are Hindus only.

My mother is a Shaivite but she also do aarti of Vishnu. So infact the fault lies with people who are too bigot to realize.

Agreed. But the problem is, if you are inherently bigoted, religion will give you more ammunition. That was my basic argument. It will show you whatever you want to see.

Buddhism went down due to a lot of reasons. Mainly it was due to Islamic invasion and destruction of Nalanda University by Khilji. However there were other reasons too. I look forward to its reconstruction which is pending now.

If muslim invasion was one reason, then the question would be, why didn't Sikhism disappear, or for that matter Hinduism. Actually, even before, the muslim invasion, Buddhism was languishing. The muslim invasion drove the last nail.

The reason, apart from the internal conflict withing Buddhism itself, among the various schools, was the rise of Brahminism.

Well...you do know that Brahmins have used Hinduism to their advantage for many centuries. They secured their inheritance with caste system (distorted version of Varna) and other means.

Yes, most of the rituals that you see today, originated during that period when the Brahmins were running amok. However, I do not think that caste system is a "distorted" version of verna. I would say, it is ONE interpretation of verna. Maybe someday, I will post something about it.

But its now evolving, and thats what actually matters now.

Agreed. But the rise of fanatics like RSS is also a matter of concern.

It encompasses various school of thoughts (there is no single authority over it). There have been people who disregarded beliefs in Vedas and those who believed in it. Duality and non-duality has been in debate by scholars. Some supported materialism and some opted for spiritualism.

In a short deifinition Hinduism is an evolutionary concept which is flexible to change, there are no stedfast rules.

I would say, that it is more or less a fair assessment.

I consider it as a way of life more than a religion.

And that makes you a rational person.

Science has been a mainstay in India during old times because of Indian religions tolerance only. Majority of sanskrit texts are athestic.

Ayurveda, Sulabhsutra, Charak Samhita, Yoga, Kamasutra etc.

I guess you meant atheistic (or is it aesthetic). I don't think, the principle that went into the concept of Ayurveda and Yoga are atheistic. Of course, these can be easily disassociated from their spiritual moorings, and in that sense, yes, these are atheistic. Sulabhsutra is not exactly a book of science. It is actually a do-it-yourself guide book to build fire alters needed for yajnas. The acceptence was only natural. Kamsutra was a novel, and sex always sells. Charak Samhita, is full of superstitious ways of treating diseases. Not exactly atheistic.

Oh, I am an atheist I believe in materialism.

Welcome to the club.

 

[Nin13]

Yes science.... but God has made science too................

 

[mediator]

And the main purpose of every religion is stay happy and don't fight.

Calm down. Loosing a debate is not the end of the world.

"bhains ke saamne been bajana" is a proverb. Dunno why you highlighted the "bhains" I hope you understand what a proverb is.

Here's a proverb for you "bandar kya jaane adrak ka swaad". Just kiddin...
*www.indif.com/kids/hindi_proverbs/hindi_proverbs.aspx

How do you think I knew, that verse 9.22 is what I am looking for. Rest assured Krishna didn’t whisper into my ears.

And why didn't you knew 9.23? Actually there are more and I know Krishna won't whisper them into your ears. Googling is an easy way to find from critic sites the "one liners" which make assumptions from one verse which is clearly reflecting from your posts. Normally a critic would think that Krishna is glorifying "the person".

1. If Buddha preached something, that is not attested by veda, does that make him pro-veda.

2. Just so you know that half the things that you consider as part of your religion, isn’t even mentioned in the most sacred of the sacred text.

3. You didn’t notice the contradictions in those two links, did you ? The first link talks of “rebirth”, the second “reincarnation”. The first is talking of lack of “continuity”, disingenuously so, while the second about “continuity”. In fact the second link is even talking of “soul” when, Buddha discarded the concept of “soul”. A case of blindly googling, without knowing what to look for. See, googling is not that easy.

The reason why I buy the transmigration argument is because of the belief that Buddha remembered his past lives (of course metaphors). Now in Hinduism, there is a concept of soul and death is when the soul leaves this current body, and birth is when it enters a new one. The soul doesn’t die. It simply changes abode. Vivekanada, explained it with a metaphor of reading a book. When we read a book, we turn the pages, but until the last page is turned, we are not done reading. Soul is that book, while the pages are the different forms it takes to reach to the last page. That last page, of course is the moksha. The point is of continuity. In Buddhism, the problem is that there is no concept of soul. Therefore, clearly, the rebirth is not the transmission of soul from one form into another (man in one birth, cat in another, depending on karma). Yet then, one is supposed to remember his past. Which means, memory is indeed expected to be transmitted between the births, without, of course, transmission of soul. Therefore the continuity is indeed there (that’s why I called, the first link’s claim, that there is no continuity as disingenuous) but not in the sense that Hindus understand. The concept of transmigration, solves the problem of continuity, at least for me.

1. That doesn't make him "anti-veda" either. So running away from the original logic isn't a good idea. Instead simply accept he wasn't "anti-veda".

There are people in this world who chant "gayatri mantra" without knowing that it is from Vedas. That neither makes them anti-veda or pro-veda. But Buddha knew it is from Vedas, didn't he?

2. Tells the one who quoted manusmriti and cast system "by birth" repeatedly, till yesterday? Please don't tell me what is a part and what is not. You need bigger things to concentrate first, like being "unbiased".

3. Don't get over excited. Thats why I already said, Buddhist view of rebirth is much more intense, but also "Buddha seemed to have remembered his past lives". Here's a quote from the first one itself, if you read between the lines last time ....

Specifically, within the Buddhist tradition, we have the testimony of the Buddha on the matter of rebirth. On the night of His enlightenment, the Buddha acquired three varieties of knowledge and the first of these was the detailed knowledge of His past lives. He was able to recollect the conditions in which He had been born in His past lives. He was able to remember what His names had been, what His occupations had been and so on. Besides the Buddha’s testimony, His prominent disciples were also able to recollect their past lives. Ananda, for instance, acquired the ability to recollect his past life soon after his ordination. Similarly, throughout the history of Buddhism, saints, scholars and meditators have been able to recollect their past lives.
.
.
.
In Buddhism, rebirth is part of the continuous process of change. In fact, we are not only reborn at the time of death, we are born and reborn at every moment. This too, like many other Buddhist teachings, is easily verifiable by reference to our own experience and by reference to the teachings of science. For instance, the majority of the cells in the human body die and are replaced many times during the course of one’s life. Even those few cells which last one’s entire life undergo constant internal changes. This is part of the process of birth, death and rebirth. If we look at the mind too, we find that mental states of worry, happiness and so forth are changing every moment. They die and are replaced by new states. So whether we look at the body or the mind, our experience is characterized by continuous birth, death and rebirth.
.
.
.
.
In Buddhism, it is taught that there are various realms, spheres or dimensions of existence. There are thirty-one planes of existence listed, but for our purposes, we are going to utilize a simpler scheme which enumerates six realms of existence. In general, the six realms may be divided into two groups, one of which is relatively fortunate and the other relatively miserable. The first group includes three of the six realms and they are the realm of the gods, the realm of the demigods and the realm of human beings. Rebirth in these fortunate realms is the result of wholesome karma. The second group includes the three realms that are considered relatively miserable. They are sometimes called the realms of woe, and they are the realm of animals, the realm of hungry ghosts and the realm of hell beings. Rebirth in these states of woe is the result of unwholesome karma.

Verify that both are buddhist sites. Further I believe it is useless to talk on Buddhist view on soul since we both do not know much on Buddhism as much as we know on Hinduism. The topic started from proving "where Buddha is preaching intolerance or saying I'm the best", then it was about "Buddha being anti-veda".

I wonder why you never quoted the part that highlighted about "Buddha not being anti-veda"!!??
First you repeatedly argued he was "anti veda" or "rejected Veda" and now you bring up a new and illogical argument of "pro veda"?? May be you already forgot the highlighted part. Nuthing new...neway...here..

Buddha was not anti- Vedas

Buddha does not accept Vedas as God's utterances. They are the achievements of sages through meditation. He has been anti Vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations after the death of his father. He considers 'Gayatri Mantra' the premier mantra. Had he been anti-Vedas he would not have uttered those words- Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind. Study of Vedas is very dear to him. He believes in 32 embellishments of a lofty soul as propounded in Vedas. Similarly he is not anti- Brahaman. He praises the old brahmans but wants his contemporary brahmans to shun and cast off their short comings. He wants them to purify themselves through reforms. They should be as they were.

So use your only tool i.e "google" and confirm about the "gayatri mantra" in Buddhism. Further do note the meaning of Gayatri mantra. FYI, gayatri mantra is the foremost mantra in Hinduism. You will find it being chanted in almost all of the "yagya" and "havans". AFAIK, It is also considered sometimes the supreme mantra. And lastly here's the meaning of gayatri mantra for you...


Gayatri mantra....
*www.eaglespace.com/media/pics/gayatriP.gif


"Oh God! Thou art the Giver of Life,
Remover of pain and sorrow,
The Bestower of happiness,
Oh! Creator of the Universe,
May we receive thy supreme sin-destroying light,
May Thou guide our intellect in the right direction."




Try not to run away from this point again.

The reply lies in this question: How do you suppose, a sudra will attain moksha ?

Shudra is not a species that he can't attain moksha. Before assuming anything, just remember that dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" the moment they set foot on the battle ground in Mahabharata. So, Shudra can attain moksha just like any other class through yoga, through enlightenment etc.

“Maya” in Hinduism refer to the dream dreamt by the Brahman, the One. Thus we are all animated characters in his dream and what we see all around, is illusory, even our suffering. But Buddha, rejected the idea of the One. Therefore, the sufferings are real.

It doesn't mean it is "animated" or we are "animated characters" Please ponder...
*www.experiencefestival.com/a/Hinduism_and_Maya/id/54124

They actually quote verses to support their theory.

Like I said do they conform to the various conditions? Further do they have much sanskrit connection? Remember, buddhism has profound sanskrit connection.

Not withstanding the childish assumption that China will remain communist or Buddhism will survive for the next 427,000 years (Kalki is set to appear 432,000 years after the beginning of Kali-yug and only 5,000 odd years have passed since the beginning), the point is, that the mention of the word, “Buddhist”, as enemy, has led you (not you, personally) to look for attributes that appear like Buddhism, which is a “nastik” concept, ergo communism. In other words, you have defined your (i.e. Humanity’s) enemy, in terms of “Buddhism” and its attributes. Hence, the justification.

Your justification is flawed and is very poor. No one is looking for "attributes like buddhism". Not believing in God can also refer to Jainism. Then why not jainsim?

Specifying the number of years wasn't really necessary, but it only helped me bring up another point : What is the guarantee that there won't arise another "atheistic religion" in the next 427000 years? There can be "dozens of religions" sprouting up in the next 427000 years. See for yourself how many sprouted up in the last 5000 years alone.

So why buddhism, why not all the other atheistic religions? So, like I said read the Kalki purana. It shows the signs of the Kaliyug accurately and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China which is having communists and buddhists. Further, kalki will be at war with unrighteousness. Kalki Puran has given the details of that "unrighteousness" too. Buddhism doesn't denote unrighteousness and a buddhist doesn't necessarily mean an "enlightened one", "righteous", just like today a brahmin doesn't necessarily mean a "scholar or a teacher". It is his actions that describe whether he is morally inclined or morally devoid.


I don't understand what is so hard to understand such a simple logic? So I guess, your "typical assumption" that I justified "another religion" as enemy is clearly flawed.

I agree, I am not uber intelligent like you are, and I do need some authority to clarify things. But then again, what is it that Gita says about “ego” ?

Like I said, care to read GITA urself? I have started feeling more like a preacher, correcting you on every single step.

One repetition is not going to kill us, would it. So do explain, why we should consider “nature” as “his” only definition, and not consider those that defines “him”, as the “cause”, the “creator”, the “ruler”, the “enforcer of rules” ect. of Universe. And also, explain, what “taste of water”, “light of the sun and moon” and “Om” in BG 7.8 represent.

Why specifically “taste of water” ? Why not just stop at “taste” ? Why not “taste of food” ? What is so special about water and its taste ? More importantly, what “taste” does water have ? Sweet, sour, something else ?

Why “light of sun and moon”? Why not just “light” ? Or Why not “light” of fire ? Why not “light” of stars ?

Common, it will be a walk in the park for you.

Like I said you may agree to its verses and you may not. You are an atheist yourself. So why even bother? The point still remains "where is the intolerance"?

Taste, light, "Om" simply means he is the energy, the elements, the very essence that is bounding you, that you need to survive. Here's another verse....


"All of the universes are pervaded by Me, in an imperceptibly subtle manifestation and all living entities find their support in Me; but I am not supported in them". (BG, 9.04)


The second line and below only describes your childishness. Remember, He is explaining Arjun via "giving examples" also of what he is. Like I said, you really are clueless on GITA.

Do I believe in nature ? Don’t I believe nature works without human control ? Of course I do. Do I think Sun has anything to do with “human control” ? Of course not.

Hence, you directly agree that you believe in the supreme nature or the definition of that "Me" that u consider only as a part.

 

[karnivore]

"bhains ke saamne been bajana" is a proverb. Dunno why you highlighted the "bhains" I hope you understand what a proverb is.

Here's a proverb for you "bandar kya jaane adrak ka swaad". Just kiddin...
*www.indif.com/kids/hindi_prov..._proverbs.aspx

Here’s a Bengali proverd for you:

“Jutor bhut, mukher kotha maney na”

Translation: One who understands the language of boots, doesn’t listen to spoken words.

Just kiddin…

1. That doesn't make him "anti-veda" either. So running away from the original logic isn't a good idea. Instead simply accept he wasn't "anti-veda".

There are people in this world who chant "gayatri mantra" without knowing that it is from Vedas. That neither makes them anti-veda or pro-veda. But Buddha knew it is from Vedas, didn't he?

2. Tells the one who quoted manusmriti and cast system "by birth" repeatedly, till yesterday? Please don't tell me what is a part and what is not. You need bigger things to concentrate first, like being "unbiased".

As usual, peripheral arguments. This time around, it is the word “anti”. Anyway.

1. What makes a person “anti” something or “pro” something ? Does rejection of the very core of Hinduism, as per Vedas, count as being “anit” vedic.

2. I haven’t yet said my last word on manusmriti and caste system. So don’t pop that champagne, just yet.

3. Don't get over excited. Thats why I already said, Buddhist view of rebirth is much more intense, but also "Buddha seemed to have remembered his past lives". Here's a quote from the first one itself, if you read between the lines last time ....

Specifically, within the Buddhist tradition, we have the testimony of the Buddha on the matter of rebirth. On the night of His enlightenment, the Buddha acquired three varieties of knowledge and the first of these was the detailed knowledge of His past lives. He was able to recollect the conditions in which He had been born in His past lives. He was able to remember what His names had been, what His occupations had been and so on. Besides the Buddha’s testimony, His prominent disciples were also able to recollect their past lives. Ananda, for instance, acquired the ability to recollect his past life soon after his ordination. Similarly, throughout the history of Buddhism, saints, scholars and meditators have been able to recollect their past lives.
.
.
.
In Buddhism, rebirth is part of the continuous process of change. In fact, we are not only reborn at the time of death, we are born and reborn at every moment. This too, like many other Buddhist teachings, is easily verifiable by reference to our own experience and by reference to the teachings of science. For instance, the majority of the cells in the human body die and are replaced many times during the course of one’s life. Even those few cells which last one’s entire life undergo constant internal changes. This is part of the process of birth, death and rebirth. If we look at the mind too, we find that mental states of worry, happiness and so forth are changing every moment. They die and are replaced by new states. So whether we look at the body or the mind, our experience is characterized by continuous birth, death and rebirth.
.
.
.
.
In Buddhism, it is taught that there are various realms, spheres or dimensions of existence. There are thirty-one planes of existence listed, but for our purposes, we are going to utilize a simpler scheme which enumerates six realms of existence. In general, the six realms may be divided into two groups, one of which is relatively fortunate and the other relatively miserable. The first group includes three of the six realms and they are the realm of the gods, the realm of the demigods and the realm of human beings. Rebirth in these fortunate realms is the result of wholesome karma. The second group includes the three realms that are considered relatively miserable. They are sometimes called the realms of woe, and they are the realm of animals, the realm of hungry ghosts and the realm of hell beings. Rebirth in these states of woe is the result of unwholesome karma.

Not sure, what you intend to say through those highlighted parts. The first bold talks of “continuous change”, not same as the continuity between changes. (For example, you may continuously put on a shirt, take it off, put on another and so on. So there is continuous change of shirt. But the continuity between these changes of shirt is the self, since you are putting on that shirt on yourself. This is how, Hinduism use the concept of soul). In the last paragraph, though, the author makes a distinction between rebirth and transmigration, saying, “in Buddhism we do not believe in an abiding entity, in a substance that trans-migrates”, clearly rejecting the concept of soul. He continues that they “do not believe in a self that is reborn.” I have no problem with that statement, either.

My question is, if nothing migrates, from one birth to another, then how is one expected to remember his past birth, because, memory will die with death of self. Rebirth will be like starting afresh. So how does the remembrance of past birth, by Buddha, fit in the whole scheme of rebirth not being transmigration.

Verify that both are buddhist sites. Further I believe it is useless to talk on Buddhist view on soul since we both do not know much on Buddhism as much as we know on Hinduism. The topic started from proving "where Buddha is preaching intolerance or saying I'm the best", then it was about "Buddha being anti-veda".

Buddhism has several schools within itself. So it doesn’t matter if the sites are both Buddhist ones. What matters is, what they are saying. Your first link only defines rebirth. Read it. But then again, your frequency is so high, it might not even register on your radar.

Topic didn’t start like that. I had clearly mentioned, that Buddhism is not a theistic religion. You started referring to Buddha as one avatar of Vishnu. I merely pointed out, by calling him “ani-veda”, that he can’t possibly so, because he rejected the very core of vedic Hinduism. And because of this, including him into the pantheon needed much philosophical twisting, by the then Brahmins. Please don’t conflate one line of argument into another.

I wonder why you never quoted the part that highlighted about "Buddha not being anti-veda"!!??
First you repeatedly argued he was "anti veda" or "rejected Veda" and now you bring up a new and illogical argument of "pro veda"?? May be you already forgot the highlighted part. Nuthing new...neway...here..

Buddha was not anti- Vedas

Buddha does not accept Vedas as God's utterances. They are the achievements of sages through meditation. He has been anti Vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations after the death of his father. He considers 'Gayatri Mantra' the premier mantra. Had he been anti-Vedas he would not have uttered those words- Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind. Study of Vedas is very dear to him. He believes in 32 embellishments of a lofty soul as propounded in Vedas. Similarly he is not anti- Brahaman. He praises the old brahmans but wants his contemporary brahmans to shun and cast off their short comings. He wants them to purify themselves through reforms. They should be as they were.

So use your only tool i.e "google" and confirm about the "gayatri mantra" in Buddhism. Further do note the meaning of Gayatri mantra. FYI, gayatri mantra is the foremost mantra in Hinduism. You will find it being chanted in almost all of the "yagya" and "havans". AFAIK, It is also considered sometimes the supreme mantra. And lastly here's the meaning of gayatri mantra for you...

1. Please show me where, Buddha claimed that “Gayatri Mantra” is the premier mantra.

2. Actually Buddha rejected Vedas only after studying them. Not before studying them. So please, show me again, where he says that “Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind”

3. The author of the site, doesn’t know the difference between “Brahman” and “BrahmanA”. Why am I not surprised. Anyway, if Buddha did reject the “Brahman”.

4. Now about the clincher – arranging gayetri mantra on his father’s death. Please give me an authentic source that this actually happened.

How do you suppose, a sudra will attain moksha ?

Shudra is not a species that he can't attain moksha. Before assuming anything, just remember that dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" the moment they set foot on the battle ground in Mahabharata. So, Shudra can attain moksha just like any other class through yoga, through enlightenment etc.

Before making tall claims, read about your own religion a bit. Only Brahmins and Kshatriyas are allowed to go to gurukul (roughly speaking school), to study Vedas, applicable to Brahmins or to study art of war, applicable to Kshatriyas. Vysas and Sudras are not allowed to do so. Sudras, on the other hand are supposed to serve the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, all their life. They are not allowed to study Vedas. So how will they know of yogas and be enlightened. Who will teach them these important aspect of their religion. Its one thing to say they can. Its another thing to ensure that they can.

And since you have read so much about Hinduism, here’s a correction. Dronacharya didn’t become a kshatriya by setting “foot on the battle gorund”, but became so on his own will long time before the Kurukshetra war. He was the kaurava’s and pandava’s teacher, teaching them weaponry and the art of war. As with other acharyas, becoming kshatriyas by taking part in the battle (again not your realization for I have see it before as well), makes an assumption that caste identity can be changed by simply doing what another caste does. It is not so. If a Brahmin picks up a stick to ward off/fight a danger, it won’t make him a Kshatriya.

On second thought, what do I know. If you have said it, it has to be true.

“Maya” in Hinduism refer to the dream dreamt by the Brahman, the One. Thus we are all animated characters in his dream and what we see all around, is illusory, even our suffering. But Buddha, rejected the idea of the One. Therefore, the sufferings are real.

It doesn't mean it is "animated" or we are "animated characters" Please ponder...
*www.experiencefestival.com/a/..._Maya/id/54124

“Animation” as in “Suspended Animation”, not hand drawn, computer generated cartoon characters.

Like I said do they conform to the various conditions? Further do they have much sanskrit connection? Remember, buddhism has profound sanskrit connection.

Yes, with some mental gymnastics, like you often do. And Sanskrit is a language. What has language got to do with religion ?

Your justification is flawed and is very poor. No one is looking for "attributes like buddhism". Not believing in God can also refer to Jainism. Then why not jainsim?

I said “attributes of Buddhism”, didn’t specify what attributes. And if Buddhism and Jainism were same, why would we call them by separate names. Here’s something you had said earlier:

…the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given

Then later clarified:

It doesn't mean the symptoms of buddhists

Confused ?

Specifying the number of years wasn't really necessary, but it only helped me bring up another point : What is the guarantee that there won't arise another "atheistic religion" in the next 427000 years? There can be "dozens of religions" sprouting up in the next 427000 years. See for yourself how many sprouted up in the last 5000 years alone.

First, I quoted those figures, using the phrase “not withstanding”, meaning ignore it.

Second, the point still stands. There is no way of knowing, that 427,000 later China will exist, let alone Buddism or communism, not to mention the human race. Here, in 2009, you have already come to the conclusion that it is about China, about “Buddhism and communism” being “used interchangeably”. Thats talent (not yours thought).

Asking you, which part of the puranic description of geography, sounds similar to China would be futile, so never mind.

So why buddhism, why not all the other atheistic religions? So, like I said read the Kalki purana. It shows the signs of the Kaliyug accurately and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China which is having communists and buddhists. Further, kalki will be at war with unrighteousness. Kalki Puran has given the details of that "unrighteousness" too. Buddhism doesn't denote unrighteousness and a buddhist doesn't necessarily mean an "enlightened one", "righteous", just like today a brahmin doesn't necessarily mean a "scholar or a teacher". It is his actions that describe whether he is morally inclined or morally devoid.

Because, people like you make literal translation of words, and the word “Buddhist” is mentioned in your purana. Hence, everything seems to you like a “symptom” of Buddhism. If Jainism was mentioned, the same symptoms would have appeared to be like that of Jainism.

Here’s another Bengali proverb for you:

“machi mara kerani”

And why didn't you knew 9.23?

The point still remains "where is the intolerance"?

The reason, why I didn’t quote verse 9.23 is precisely because, it is not as boastful as 9.22. Verse 9.23 has a different connotation, which, we can now safely conclude, you don’t have a clue of.

So do explain, why we should consider “nature” as “his” only definition, and not consider those that defines “him”, as the “cause”, the “creator”, the “ruler”, the “enforcer of rules” ect. of Universe. And also, explain, what “taste of water”, “light of the sun and moon” and “Om” in BG 7.8 represent.

Why specifically “taste of water” ? Why not just stop at “taste” ? Why not “taste of food” ? What is so special about water and its taste ? More importantly, what “taste” does water have ? Sweet, sour, something else ?

Why “light of sun and moon”? Why not just “light” ? Or Why not “light” of fire ? Why not “light” of stars ?

Taste, light, "Om" simply means he is the energy, the elements, the very essence that is bounding you, that you need to survive. Here's another verse....


"All of the universes are pervaded by Me, in an imperceptibly subtle manifestation and all living entities find their support in Me; but I am not supported in them". (BG, 9.04)


The second line and below only describes your childishness. Remember, He is explaining Arjun via "giving examples" also of what he is. Like I said, you really are clueless on GITA.

That’s the best you could do (or should I say come up with, after much googling ?). Which part of “taste” and “om” is energy and/or elements. Lets forget it for the time being. If that’s what it is supposed to mean, why not stop at those words only ? Why go on to add “water” and “sun and moon” ? What is the connotation of “water” here ? How does “water” even have a taste ? Is it sweet, sour, salty, bitter ? Oops I just gave away a hint. If it were all about examples, then why “water”, why not “food” ? After all it is very easy to associate a taste with food.

You didn’t tell us “why we should consider “nature” as “his” only definition, and not consider those that defines “him”, as the “cause”, the “creator”, the “ruler”, the “enforcer of rules” ect. of Universe.”

Do I believe in nature ? Don’t I believe nature works without human control ? Of course I do. Do I think Sun has anything to do with “human control” ? Of course not.

Hence, you directly agree that you believe in the supreme nature or the definition of that "Me" that u consider only as a part.

So basically, if I believe that nature is not within “human control” it automatically means that I believe “in the supreme nature or the definition of that Me”. Because, hey, if it is not under “human control” it has to be under something’s control.

Yup, you got me there.

 

[mediator]

As usual, peripheral arguments. This time around, it is the word “anti”. Anyway.

1. What makes a person “anti” something or “pro” something ? Does rejection of the very core of Hinduism, as per Vedas, count as being “anit” vedic.

2. I haven’t yet said my last word on manusmriti and caste system. So don’t pop that champagne, just yet.

1. The very core of Hinduism is Vedas. Where did he "reject" Vedas. Why are you ranting and not showing where he "rejected" Gayatri mantra which is also at the core of Hinduism? Further many of the teachings of Vedas resemble that of Buddhism. "Rejection" of something means "rejection" of its teachings also not the term only. And so learn how buddhists chant vedas.

2. Congrats!

Not sure, what you intend to say through those highlighted parts. The first bold talks of “continuous change”, not same as the continuity between changes. (For example, you may continuously put on a shirt, take it off, put on another and so on. So there is continuous change of shirt. But the continuity between these changes of shirt is the self, since you are putting on that shirt on yourself. This is how, Hinduism use the concept of soul). In the last paragraph, though, the author makes a distinction between rebirth and transmigration, saying, “in Buddhism we do not believe in an abiding entity, in a substance that trans-migrates”, clearly rejecting the concept of soul. He continues that they “do not believe in a self that is reborn.” I have no problem with that statement, either.

My question is, if nothing migrates, from one birth to another, then how is one expected to remember his past birth, because, memory will die with death of self. Rebirth will be like starting afresh. So how does the remembrance of past birth, by Buddha, fit in the whole scheme of rebirth not being transmigration.

And so, where is the "intolerance" in the Buddhist scriptures for Hinduism, where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best"?? I hope you still remember the topic of the discussion that started with @amitash.

1. Please show me where, Buddha claimed that “Gayatri Mantra” is the premier mantra.

2. Actually Buddha rejected Vedas only after studying them. Not before studying them. So please, show me again, where he says that “Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind”

3. The author of the site, doesn’t know the difference between “Brahman” and “BrahmanA”. Why am I not surprised. Anyway, if Buddha did reject the “Brahman”.

4. Now about the clincher – arranging gayetri mantra on his father’s death. Please give me an authentic source that this actually happened.

1) Do I need to show you everything? First the Gita verse by verse and now this? Know yourself the life of Buddha and how buddhists chant the Gayatri Mantra.
2,3) Buddhist origins. Like I said Buddhism, was more about removing the "ills" in Hinduism.

Further, I was expecting you would say this line. "Not to read Vedas is to collect scum..." is more of an author's view which has been succeeded by a line "Study of Vedas is very dear to him". "Those words" refer to the "Gayatri mantra" and not the terms "these words" which should have been put if he had referred the "scum" part.

Its a part of correcting the passage which is filled with typos and the train of logic.

They are the achievements of sages through meditation. He has been anti Vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations after the death of his father. He considers 'Gayatri Mantra' the premier mantra. Had he been anti-Vedas he would not have uttered those words-

He simply puts a premise and then reasons i.e presmise => reason!
1. They (Vedas) were achievements of sages through meditation. => "Has he been anti-vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations"
2. He considers gayatri mantra as premier mantra. => "Had he been anti-vedas he would not have uttered those words".

Now find the typos. Further, Buddha "knew" Vedas. One cannot be anti-veda or pro-veda without even knowing what the vedas are. He was not against Vedas, but the supremacy of brahmins "by birth" like I said already and it was common in ancient era to chant "Vedic recitations" after one's death.

So clearly you don't even understand the passage now.


4) The source doesn't say he "arranged gayatri mantra on his father's death".

Before making tall claims, read about your own religion a bit. Only Brahmins and Kshatriyas are allowed to go to gurukul (roughly speaking school), to study Vedas, applicable to Brahmins or to study art of war, applicable to Kshatriyas. Vysas and Sudras are not allowed to do so. Sudras, on the other hand are supposed to serve the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, all their life. They are not allowed to study Vedas. So how will they know of yogas and be enlightened. Who will teach them these important aspect of their religion. Its one thing to say they can. Its another thing to ensure that they can.

And since you have read so much about Hinduism, here’s a correction. Dronacharya didn’t become a kshatriya by setting “foot on the battle gorund”, but became so on his own will long time before the Kurukshetra war. He was the kaurava’s and pandava’s teacher, teaching them weaponry and the art of war. As with other acharyas, becoming kshatriyas by taking part in the battle (again not your realization for I have see it before as well), makes an assumption that caste identity can be changed by simply doing what another caste does. It is not so. If a Brahmin picks up a stick to ward off/fight a danger, it won’t make him a Kshatriya.

I dunno how much you will keep glorifying your ignorance. But neways, in a school a student "irrespective" of his cast "by birth" was allowed. A student has no tags. He is not a shudra or a brahmin. A brahmin means a teacher, knowledgeable one. And no one is born knowledgable and hence no one is a born brahmin. Again you have started repeating your full fledged ignorance on "varna system" for an umpteenth time.

And hence your question "who will teach them" is absurd and speaks bt your ignorance on Hinduism which preaches equality to all.


Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya either when he stepped his foot on the battle ground or before the start of the battle is the same thing. His mind was simply focussing on the actions of a kshatriya and not a guru on the field or before the start. You simply don't understand such a simple point even after so many years?

On second thought, what do I know. If you have said it, it has to be true.

I believe you know, but you are not accepting it because of your hatred towards religion and that is why you keep on speaking the same thing everytime Hinduism is discussed, The following 2 are prominent in your repeatitions
1. "Mleccha"
2. "Cast system by birth"

Then later clarified:

The clarification was given in the same set of statements for the confused souls who might get confused after reading "Kalki Puran" and get excited by a mere mention of buddhists and not the symptoms like of the King I already showed. kalki Purana has whole lot of symtoms. It doesn't say those who "are spiritual", "believe in rebirth", "karma" etc will be attacked.

Again, what is so hard to understand such simple points?

Because, people like you make literal translation of words, and the word “Buddhist” is mentioned in your purana. Hence, everything seems to you like a “symptom” of Buddhism. If Jainism was mentioned, the same symptoms would have appeared to be like that of Jainism.

Here’s another Bengali proverb for you:

“machi mara kerani”

Ok I think we can play proverb game in chit chat

So where is the "intolerance preached by Buddha or saying Buddha is the best"?

The reason, why I didn’t quote verse 9.23 is precisely because, it is not as boastful as 9.22. Verse 9.23 has a different connotation, which, we can now safely conclude, you don’t have a clue of.

O'reilly?
And why didn't you reason on the commentaries I sourced in the first place, why even go to "pravupada's one"?? Don't tell me those commentaries are boastful too. And further, you treat a verse as "boastful"? How absurd!

Like I said, its the whole GITA and not one verse that we should be after. Every verse is connected. It has chapters with examples. With one verse you may or may not understand anything. But with complete GITA read and understood you will understand everything. And you talk bt "boastful"?

That’s the best you could do (or should I say come up with, after much googling ?). Which part of “taste” and “om” is energy and/or elements. Lets forget it for the time being. If that’s what it is supposed to mean, why not stop at those words only ? Why go on to add “water” and “sun and moon” ? What is the connotation of “water” here ? How does “water” even have a taste ? Is it sweet, sour, salty, bitter ? Oops I just gave away a hint. If it were all about examples, then why “water”, why not “food” ? After all it is very easy to associate a taste with food.

You didn’t tell us “why we should consider “nature” as “his” only definition, and not consider those that defines “him”, as the “cause”, the “creator”, the “ruler”, the “enforcer of rules” ect. of Universe.”

Your hatred towards religion is obviously obstructing you to see the bigger and the real picture. The energy is the sunlight and "Om" means both knowledge and sound energy." The elements is again an example of the "all pervasivess"


And he is not preaching a religion hater who cannot grasp the straight and simpler meanings in the first place, for I'm sure he (Krishna) would have done his best in that case then and tried to put the entire Sanskrit dictionary in front of him.

You didn’t tell us “why we should consider “nature” as “his” only definition, and not consider those that defines “him”, as the “cause”, the “creator”, the “ruler”, the “enforcer of rules” ect. of Universe.”

I believe the nature is cause, the ruler, the enforcer of the rules itself. For a proponent of Big Bang like you, it shouldn't be hard to understand. We didn't have all the physics rules at t=0 did we? Further, why even bother on "theistic" meanings when you are an atheist yourself? And hence, consider the nature as "his" only defintion for that might be easier for you.

We simply cannot fight the nature, we need the nature of our survival and nature doesn't need us to support itself.



And so, the question that keeps on arising, for which you trolled, is yet to be answered by you i.e where is religion/GOD, i.e a "person" from your posts, is preaching "intolerance"? Where is krishna saying "Kishna is the best"? Where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best", Gururnanak saying "Gurunanak is the best"? Answer it for I believe its a walk in the park for u?

 

[karnivore]

1. The very core of Hinduism is Vedas. Where did he "reject" Vedas. Why are you ranting and not showing where he "rejected" Gayatri mantra which is also at the core of Hinduism? Further many of the teachings of Vedas resemble that of Buddhism. "Rejection" of something means "rejection" of its teachings also not the term only. And so learn how buddhists chant vedas.

2. Congrats!

1. Why are you intentionally digressing. The core of Hinduism is Vedas. The core of Vedas is the Brahman. Buddha rejected the Brahman, the whole concept of One god. Therefore, rejected the core of Vedas, therefore the core of Hinduism. Comprende. It doesn’t mean one has to reject every single verse of the Vedas, every single philosophy enshrined in it. Rejecting the core is enough. Most of the corollaries will automatically become redundant, some won’t.

Btw, the modern Hinduism is part Upanishadic, part Puranic, and not so much vedic. If you want, I can elaborate on that (provided further I get time), but be careful, what you wish for. You might look silly for not knowing your own religion.

2. Thank you. Just not sure if you are congratulating me for not saying my last word on a subject or for something else.

Not sure, what you intend to say through those highlighted parts. The first bold talks of “continuous change”, not same as the continuity between changes. (For example, you may continuously put on a shirt, take it off, put on another and so on. So there is continuous change of shirt. But the continuity between these changes of shirt is the self, since you are putting on that shirt on yourself. This is how, Hinduism use the concept of soul). In the last paragraph, though, the author makes a distinction between rebirth and transmigration, saying, “in Buddhism we do not believe in an abiding entity, in a substance that trans-migrates”, clearly rejecting the concept of soul. He continues that they “do not believe in a self that is reborn.” I have no problem with that statement, either.

My question is, if nothing migrates, from one birth to another, then how is one expected to remember his past birth, because, memory will die with death of self. Rebirth will be like starting afresh. So how does the remembrance of past birth, by Buddha, fit in the whole scheme of rebirth not being transmigration.

And so, where is the "intolerance" in the Buddhist scriptures for Hinduism, where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best"?? I hope you still remember the topic of the discussion that started with @amitash.

What has “Buddha is the best” got to do with that reply of mine. I was supporting my stand on transmigration. Conflating everything into everything else, is not going to earn you any brownies. I do remember the topic of discussion, but pity, you don’t remember which point led to what argument and mixing it all up. Here’s what I had said before:

Actually no religious text says that it is the best. What they do say, though, is that their godhead is the only godhead and rest are a nullity or inferior. Bible does that. Koran does that. And your Gita does that too.

-snip-

As with Buddhism, it is not a theistic religion.

1) Do I need to show you everything? First the Gita verse by verse and now this? Know yourself the life of Buddha and how buddhists chant the Gayatri Mantra.
2,3) Buddhist origins. Like I said Buddhism, was more about removing the "ills" in Hinduism.

1. If you have made a claim, then its your responsibility to prove it. Not mine. Since you haven’t proved that Buddha said something to the effect, that “Gayatri Mantra is the premier mantra”, the point, therefore stands rejected.

2,3. Read 1. above.

Further, I was expecting you would say this line. "Not to read Vedas is to collect scum..." is more of an author's view which has been succeeded by a line "Study of Vedas is very dear to him". "Those words" refer to the "Gayatri mantra" and not the terms "these words" which should have been put if he had referred the "scum" part.

Its a part of correcting the passage which is filled with typos and the train of logic.

They are the achievements of sages through meditation. He has been anti Vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations after the death of his father. He considers 'Gayatri Mantra' the premier mantra. Had he been anti-Vedas he would not have uttered those words-

He simply puts a premise and then reasons i.e presmise => reason!
1. They (Vedas) were achievements of sages through meditation. => "Has he been anti-vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations"
2. He considers gayatri mantra as premier mantra. => "Had he been anti-vedas he would not have uttered those words".

Now find the typos. Further, Buddha "knew" Vedas. One cannot be anti-veda or pro-veda without even knowing what the vedas are. He was not against Vedas, but the supremacy of brahmins "by birth" like I said already and it was common in ancient era to chant "Vedic recitations" after one's death.

So clearly you don't even understand the passage now.

First, I see, now you have edited out the Brahman part. Good. You are learning fast.

Second, who gives a flying fukc, what a Tom, Dick or Harry - who can’t even make a distinction between the two most important terminologies of Hinduism - think. And btw, aren't you doing what you accuse us of doing - following something without verifying.

Third, you still haven’t proved that Buddha actually “arranged recitation of Vedic incantations” on his father’s death, or that he considered “Gayatri mantra as premier mantra”. Prove it, will talk then. Till then, it stands rejected.

4) The source doesn't say he "arranged gayatri mantra on his father's death".

Oversight. Apologies.

I dunno how much you will keep glorifying your ignorance. But neways, in a school a student "irrespective" of his cast "by birth" was allowed. A student has no tags. He is not a shudra or a brahmin. A brahmin means a teacher, knowledgeable one. And no one is born knowledgable and hence no one is a born brahmin. Again you have started repeating your full fledged ignorance on "varna system" for an umpteenth time.

And hence your question "who will teach them" is absurd and speaks bt your ignorance on Hinduism which preaches equality to all.

Since we are in Mahabharata, lets see what Krishna says about the duty of a Sudra: (Udyoga Parva, Chapter XXIX)

“The following are the duties declared for a Sudra from the olden times. He should serve the Brahmanas and submit to them; should not study; sacrifices are forbidden to him; he should be diligent and be constantly enterprising in doing all that is for his good.” (K.M.Ganguli)
​

Here’s what Gita says: 18.44

“Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities of work for the vaisyas, and for the sudras there is labor and service to others.” (Pravupada)
​

“Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishya (merchant class), born of (their own) nature; and action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra (servant class), born of (their own) nature.” (Sivananda)
​

But I can be wrong. After all what do I know ? (Prediction: You are going to come back asking, where is Gita saying that sudras can’t study, completely be silent on Krishna's comments in Mahabharata, question the authors interpretation, question the authors authority. Thats pretty much all you got.)

Equality ? Yes, of course. Only Orwail ishtile.

Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya either when he stepped his foot on the battle ground or before the start of the battle is the same thing. His mind was simply focussing on the actions of a kshatriya and not a guru on the field or before the start. You simply don't understand such a simple point even after so many years?

Give it a rest. Just because you have made a mistake, it doesn’t mean you have to keep on justifying it, by making more mistakes.

First there is no “either, or” with Dronacharya. But then again, you have to read the epic to know how, why and under what circumstances Dronacharya became a Kshatriya.

Second, basically what you are saying is that by simply concentrating on something else, one changes his caste. That means, when I am cleaning by house, I become a sudra. Then when I am trading in the stock market, I am a vaisya. Then again, when I am fighting with my boss, I am kshatriya. And finally when I am reading Gita, I am a Brahmin. I am speechless. Didn’t know caste was a chameleon.

The clarification was given in the same set of statements for the confused souls who might get confused after reading "Kalki Puran" and get excited by a mere mention of buddhists and not the symptoms like of the King I already showed. kalki Purana has whole lot of symtoms. It doesn't say those who "are spiritual", "believe in rebirth", "karma" etc will be attacked.

Again, what is so hard to understand such simple points?

Then, what about this:

…the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given

So where is the "intolerance preached by Buddha or saying Buddha is the best"?

Again conflating.

O'reilly?
And why didn't you reason on the commentaries I sourced in the first place, why even go to "pravupada's one"?? Don't tell me those commentaries are boastful too. And further, you treat a verse as "boastful"? How absurd!

Like I said, its the whole GITA and not one verse that we should be after. Every verse is connected. It has chapters with examples. With one verse you may or may not understand anything. But with complete GITA read and understood you will understand everything. And you talk bt "boastful"?

Your hatred towards religion is obviously obstructing you to see the bigger and the real picture. The energy is the sunlight and "Om" means both knowledge and sound energy." The elements is again an example of the "all pervasivess"

Never mind. Beyond you.

And he is not preaching a religion hater who cannot grasp the straight and simpler meanings in the first place, for I'm sure he (Krishna) would have done his best in that case then and tried to put the entire Sanskrit dictionary in front of him.

You prove two points then.

1. That everything falls in place once you are viewing it from within. Viewed from without, things appear disjoint. So a faithful will swallow everything and find justification in everything. Precisely our point.

2. Religious books are not enlightening enough to make a faithless change his opinion.

I believe the nature is cause, the ruler, the enforcer of the rules itself. For a proponent of Big Bang like you, it shouldn't be hard to understand. We didn't have all the physics rules at t=0 did we? Further, why even bother on "theistic" meanings when you are an atheist yourself? And hence, consider the nature as "his" only defintion for that might be easier for you.

Lets see. Nature is the “cause” and nature is the “effect”. Something which is the cause, is also the effect ? You are talented.

Second bold is a sign of frustration. I understand. You just now got to know that Santa Clause isn’t real.

And so, the question that keeps on arising, for which you trolled, is yet to be answered by you i.e where is religion/GOD, i.e a "person" from your posts, is preaching "intolerance"? Where is krishna saying "Kishna is the best"? Where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best", Gururnanak saying "Gurunanak is the best"? Answer it for I believe its a walk in the park for u?

This is just a debate, for crying out loud. Loosing it isn’t the end of the road. As with the walk in the park, hey, I am the one who follows science, who doesn’t understand Hinduism, needs guidance on Gita (as per your assessment). Nothing is walk in the park for me.

On the other hand…

 

[mediator]

1. Why are you intentionally digressing. The core of Hinduism is Vedas. The core of Vedas is the Brahman. Buddha rejected the Brahman, the whole concept of One god. Therefore, rejected the core of Vedas, therefore the core of Hinduism. Comprende. It doesn’t mean one has to reject every single verse of the Vedas, every single philosophy enshrined in it. Rejecting the core is enough. Most of the corollaries will automatically become redundant, some won’t.

Btw, the modern Hinduism is part Upanishadic, part Puranic, and not so much vedic. If you want, I can elaborate on that (provided further I get time), but be careful, what you wish for. You might look silly for not knowing your own religion.

2. Thank you. Just not sure if you are congratulating me for not saying my last word on a subject or for something else.

Yes with a naive understanding, one can only tell what he understands. Like you didn't understand Gita, you don't understand Vedas also. The vedas clearly define the supreme reality like krishna does in Gita. "Om" is also one of the basic mantras in Vedas. It defines the energy and knowledge like I stated earlier and use your only source i.e google to know more about "Om" in Buddhism.

Also, I think ur little googles didn't tell you that Buddha rejected "Brahman" to save the animals because of the animal killings that were going on. He wanted to dismantle the degenerate approach of brahmanas "of that time." Atleast you could have read what "Prabhupada" says on the matter, the name you respect and brought in this debate. Like I already said, cast by birth was being practiced and other bad practices were on the rise.

You simply don't have a clue now or getting confused what Buddha didn't agree with.

So, The line in the bold again tells about your ignorance. "Om" is also the core of Hinduism.

What has “Buddha is the best” got to do with that reply of mine. I was supporting my stand on transmigration. Conflating everything into everything else, is not going to earn you any brownies. I do remember the topic of discussion, but pity, you don’t remember which point led to what argument and mixing it all up. Here’s what I had said before:

Again the topic was about "intolerance" and the point because of which you hate religion. So where is the religion preaching about intolerance?

The point was where you started ranting about buddha being "anti-veda", then illogically reasoned that "it doesn't mean he was pro veda" and now this. I think you are getting confused and I have to remind you at every step what the topic was about and still I get no answers.

1. If you have made a claim, then its your responsibility to prove it. Not mine. Since you haven’t proved that Buddha said something to the effect, that “Gayatri Mantra is the premier mantra”, the point, therefore stands rejected.

2,3. Read 1. above.

Here's a list of Buddhist mantras.
*www.ramalila.org/BuddhistQuestions/Om.html
*buddhistlinks.org/Mantras.htm#g

May ask why do "enlightened Buddhists" chant gayatri mantra?

First, I see, now you have edited out the Brahman part. Good. You are learning fast.

Second, who gives a flying fukc, what a Tom, Dick or Harry - who can’t even make a distinction between the two most important terminologies of Hinduism - think. And btw, aren't you doing what you accuse us of doing - following something without verifying.

Third, you still haven’t proved that Buddha actually “arranged recitation of Vedic incantations” on his father’s death, or that he considered “Gayatri mantra as premier mantra”. Prove it, will talk then. Till then, it stands rejected.

1. Edited?
2. Rants ignored!
3. Thats like saying prove that Buddha didn't chant "Om", spoke sanskrit etc.

One doesn't have to be genius to understand that recitation of vedic incantations was a norm in the past and even today they are chanted. Chantng "Om" is itself an incantation. So, asking for such proof is simply childish!

Since we are in Mahabharata, lets see what Krishna says about the duty of a Sudra: (Udyoga Parva, Chapter XXIX)
“The following are the duties declared for a Sudra from the olden times. He should serve the Brahmanas and submit to them; should not study; sacrifices are forbidden to him; he should be diligent and be constantly enterprising in doing all that is for his good.” (K.M.Ganguli)

You know, having been a sanskrit student has its own perks. One good thing about sacred texts.com is that it also keeps the orginal sanskrit verses. Here's the original sanskrit for the thing you quoted.
*www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05029.htm

Look carefully for the 24th one. This is the 24th sentence of the chater XXIX. Do even find "shudra" in it? If you don't know sanskrit then, ask any sanskrit student and he will tell you that "shuthra" is not "shudra".

Look how shudra is written first....
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-42.html

Here are some verses...

yudhisthira uvaca
satyam danam ksama-silam anrsamsyam damo ghrna
drsyante yatra nagendra sa brahmana iti smrtah

"Maharaja Yudhisthira replied: A person who possesses truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, sobriety, gentleness, austerity, and lack of hatred is called a brahmana." (Mahabharata, Vana Parva (3.)177.16)


yudhistira uvaca
sudre tu yad bhavel laksma dvije tac ca na vidyate
na vai sudro bhavec chudro brahmano na ca brahmanah

yatraital laksyate sarpa vrttam sa brahmanah smrtah
yatraitan na bhavet sarpa tam sudram iti nirdiset

"Maharaja Yudhisthira replied: If such symptoms are found in a sudra he should never be called a sudra, just as a brahmana is not a brahmana if he does not possess these qualities. O snake, only a person who is endowed with the characteristics of a brahmana can be called a brahmana, otherwise he is a sudra." (Mahabharata, Vana Parva, (3.)177.20-21)

Try to find these in K.M ganguli's work...

But its nice to know such verses that you quoted and add it to my list of distortions. Besides K.M Ganguli's is the only "complete translation" I believe and so there is not "complete" way to verify it.

So like I said in the past . . .
1. You neither know even the "basic sanskrit".
2. You like to quote from critic site.
3. Google is you only tool. You simply do not possess the genuine knowledge in terms of "language" or the genuine complete reads".


Aren't you ashmamed of being so biased against something that you don't even know the basics about?

Here’s what Gita says: 18.44
“Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities of work for the vaisyas, and for the sudras there is labor and service to others.” (Pravupada)
“Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishya (merchant class), born of (their own) nature; and action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra (servant class), born of (their own) nature.” (Sivananda)

Yes pravupada's right. And do note it is the definition/"actions" of shudra and vaishya that is being explained, born out of their own nature. It is not having anything to do with "by birth".
For a better understanding ...
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-42.html

But I can be wrong. After all what do I know ? (Prediction: You are going to come back asking, where is Gita saying that sudras can’t study, completely be silent on Krishna's comments in Mahabharata, question the authors interpretation, question the authors authority. Thats pretty much all you got.)

Equality ? Yes, of course. Only Orwail ishtile.

Sorry for not reading this. Yes you are wrong. The basic sanskrit is wrong in the first case and your comprehension in the latter. I believe we should stop this verse by verse battle.

Give it a rest. Just because you have made a mistake, it doesn’t mean you have to keep on justifying it, by making more mistakes.

First there is no “either, or” with Dronacharya. But then again, you have to read the epic to know how, why and under what circumstances Dronacharya became a Kshatriya.

Second, basically what you are saying is that by simply concentrating on something else, one changes his caste. That means, when I am cleaning by house, I become a sudra. Then when I am trading in the stock market, I am a vaisya. Then again, when I am fighting with my boss, I am kshatriya. And finally when I am reading Gita, I am a Brahmin. I am speechless. Didn’t know caste was a chameleon.

1) Hmmmm!
2) Nope, in previous 2 replies I talked about his actions and thoughts both depending on your reply. If you can't understand it and make me repeat like word-by-word word meanings, then "Dronacharya became Kshatriya the moment he "decided" to fight for kauravas leaving his "brahmin" work and fulfilled those actions by fighting in the war".

It doesn't have anything to do with "thought"... "alone".


But I can bet that you still won't understand.

Then, what about this:

…the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given

Still lingering on this one? Tell me seriously, is this how you gain knowledge via online tuitions? Why just quote a part of line again and again and why not quote the complete thing?

First you quoted Gita's single verse and now single statement excerpts of my posts which are incomplete without the rest, even when I told you that??

But am done, can't repeat and explain more than that.

You prove two points then.

1. That everything falls in place once you are viewing it from within. Viewed from without, things appear disjoint. So a faithful will swallow everything and find justification in everything. Precisely our point.

2. Religious books are not enlightening enough to make a faithless change his opinion.

And you prove one thing => thats you hatred towards religion that is "assuming" such things!


And so, where is the "intolerance" among the eastern religions?

 

[Faun]

Agreed. But the problem is, if you are inherently bigoted, religion will give you more ammunition. That was my basic argument. It will show you whatever you want to see.

Yeah rigid ideologies will always bring out more fundamentalists. Nazism and communism is quite similar.

If muslim invasion was one reason, then the question would be, why didn't Sikhism disappear, or for that matter Hinduism. Actually, even before, the muslim invasion, Buddhism was languishing. The muslim invasion drove the last nail.

The reason, apart from the internal conflict withing Buddhism itself, among the various schools, was the rise of Brahminism.

During vedic age women enjoyed a major authority over rituals. Indus civilization head were women deities.

But later the concept of caste system came in, where Brahims were given the ultimate authority (just like what happend later in Europe).

This led to various school of thoughts including Buddhism and Jainism. Most people resorted to Buddhism. Mauryan Empire was the main proponent of Buddhism.

Later during Gupta period (said to be the Golden age) Hinduism came back in line, mostly because it assimilated concepts from Buddhism. You can see why most Hindus are vegetarian now. Buddha was treated as another incarnation of Vishnu. However Buddhism still flourished in east, particularly Patliputra.

Hinduism survived because it would have been foolish to kill all Hindus (same goes for Britishers), it was not practically possible. They paid jiziya in return, later abolished by Akbar but then again continued. Some Rajputs, to enjoy royal luxuries, went in alliance with Islamic rules by giving their daughters as brides. Lots of Hindus converted to Muslims to enjoy the equal status and benefits (booties of war etc).

Sikhism came in to existence a lot later and Sikh gurus resorted to defensive battles to save fellow Hindus and Sikhs. They adopted guerrilla warfare. Its existence is quite similar to Buddhism when Hindu caste system again became rigid under Islamic rule.

Yes, most of the rituals that you see today, originated during that period when the Brahmins were running amok. However, I do not think that caste system is a "distorted" version of verna. I would say, it is ONE interpretation of verna. Maybe someday, I will post something about it.

Well there is a richa in Rig Veda where the sage says:
'I am a poet , my father was a physician and my mother a pissan ' Rg Veda in( X-102)

And throughout the Indian history we have seen people from low caste ruling kingdoms. Shivaji is one of the recent example.

Agreed. But the rise of fanatics like RSS is also a matter of concern.

Well neo-liberals consider them as Hindu Taliban Thanks to our media too. IMO they can be defeated by one sure weapon - vote.

I guess you meant atheistic (or is it aesthetic). I don't think, the principle that went into the concept of Ayurveda and Yoga are atheistic. Of course, these can be easily disassociated from their spiritual moorings, and in that sense, yes, these are atheistic. Sulabhsutra is not exactly a book of science. It is actually a do-it-yourself guide book to build fire alters needed for yajnas. The acceptence was only natural. Kamsutra was a novel, and sex always sells. Charak Samhita, is full of superstitious ways of treating diseases. Not exactly atheistic.

Spelling mistake

The good thing is that Hinduism is not contrary to science, instead it has lived together with science. Indus valley civilization was one of the most sophisticated one (drainage and sewer system). Iron Pillar, invention of zero and number system. Decimal system, Jantar Mantar, rhinoplasty etc.

Carl Sagan seems to agree that only Hinduism's concept on cosmology is quite similar to what is discovered by scientific studies.

Here is what vedas say, quite interesting IMO:

Who knows the truth? Who can tell how and from where this universe came into existence? If the gods themselves came after its creation, then who can know from where it all began? Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not. The highest god who looks down from the highest heaven, only he knows, or perhaps he does not know.

Oh, btw I saw some unicorns on Harappa seals:
*www.harappa.com/indus4/gif/326a.jpg




sacred-texts.com has many mistranslations and at some points they are funny too. In one richa the translator has regarded Sindhu as male, everyone know that its female.

 

[karnivore]

I remember telling you that classical Sanskrit, i.e. the Sanskrit that we speak today, is slightly different from the Sanskrit in which Mahabharata was written. (I can only imagine what you will do if you come across the actual Sanskrit in which Rg Veda was written. And no I am not talking of Panini’s translation, that is so ubiquitous today). True to your nature, you didn’t pay heed then. After all, what do I know. But thankfully you got a taste of it today. Btw, I am no expert in Sanskrit. I have only, what you would say, a handyman’s knowledge of it.

Lets get down to business then. Shall we ?

Since translations are irrelevant here, I am not providing the translations. However, do take note that, K.M.Ganguli had arranged the chapters almost arbitrarily. Hence the chapters do not tally with the Sanskrit version. For example, Udyog Parva has 199 chapters in English translation, while in Sanskrit, there are 197. Anusasana Parva has 168 chapters in English translation, while the Sanskrit version has, 154. So on and so forth. It can be a bit tedious, if you ask me.

Verse 24 of Udyaga Parva, Chapter 29, (in Devangiri script):
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/24-UdyogParva529.jpg
(in English script - accentuations may not appear):

paricaryā vandana[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] brāhma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]ānā[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]; nādhīyīta prati[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]iddho 'sya yajña[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
nityotthito bhūtaye 'tandrita[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] syād; e[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]a sm[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] śūdra dharma[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] purā[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]a[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]

Notice how the word comes with a “th” and not “d”.

Now notice how the same word is used, in Verse 20 and 21 of Vana Parva, Chapter 177, (in Devangiri script). This is the verse that you have quoted:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/20-21-VanaParva3177.jpg
(in English script - accentuations may not appear):

20 [y]
śūdre caitad bhavel lak[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]ya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] dvije tac ca na vidyate
na vai śūdro bhavec chūdro brāhma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]o na ca brāhma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]a[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]

21 yatraital lak[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]yate sarpav[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]tta[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] sa brāhma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]a[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] sm[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
yatraitan na bhavet sarpata[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] śūdram iti nirdiśet

Here are verses 56 to 58, Anusasana Parva, Chapter 128 (in Devangiri script)
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/56-58-AnusasanaParva13128.jpg
(in English script - accentuations may not appear):

56 sarvātithya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] trivargasya yathāśakti yathārhata[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
śūdra dharma[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] paro nitya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] śuśrū[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]ā ca dvijāti[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]u

57 sa śūdra[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] sa[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]śitatapā[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] satyasa[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]dho jitendriya[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
śuśrū[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]ann atithi[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] prāpta[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] tapa[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] sa[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]cinute mahat

58 tyaktahi[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]sa[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] śubhācāro devatā dvija pūjaka[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
śūdro dharmaphalair i[FONT=&quot]ṣṭ[/FONT]ai[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] sa[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]prayujyeta buddhimān

The word comes with “th” and not “d”. This word started to be written with “d” much later. Gita, doesn’t use “th” but uses “d”. The reason why Gita is dated as younger than Mahabharata, is because, of its sophistication in words, which were absent in most of Mahabharata. (Mahabharata once consisted of only 24,000 verses, now it has burgeoned into a mammoth of 100,000 verses.)

OK, pumpkin ?

PS: Since you have this wonderful habit of conflating one argument into another, let me clarify beforehand. I have quoted these verses not as justification or counter-justification of casteism. The only bone I intend to pick, in this post, is with the word “sudra” and how it was written in the epic.

Now about the rest of your post:

Yes with a naive understanding, one can only tell what he understands. Like you didn't understand Gita, you don't understand Vedas also. The vedas clearly define the supreme reality like krishna does in Gita. "Om" is also one of the basic mantras in Vedas. It defines the energy and knowledge like I stated earlier and use your only source i.e google to know more about "Om" in Buddhism.

If I recall correctly, what I have said is:

It doesn’t mean one has to reject every single verse of the Vedas, every single philosophy enshrined in it. Rejecting the core is enough. Most of the corollaries will automatically become redundant, some won’t.

Also, I think ur little googles didn't tell you that Buddha rejected "Brahman" to save the animals because of the animal killings that were going on. He wanted to dismantle the degenerate approach of brahmanas "of that time." Atleast you could have read what "Prabhupada" says on the matter, the name you respect and brought in this debate. Like I already said, cast by birth was being practiced and other bad practices were on the rise.

What took you so long to come up with that. In fact, it is all over the intertoobs. Yes, correct, he rejected the animal sacrifice part as well. Since you do not read my posts with much attention, here is what I had said earlier:

In fact, influence of Buddhism in Hinduism has been profound. The most notable influence has been the concept of “Ahimsa”.

“Brahman” is not same as the “Brahmana”. Rejecting “Brahman” means rejecting the god. This god, has nothing to do with animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was inherent to “Brahmana” culture. “Brhamana” represented the priest class.

Again the topic was about "intolerance" and the point because of which you hate religion. So where is the religion preaching about intolerance?

The point was where you started ranting about buddha being "anti-veda", then illogically reasoned that "it doesn't mean he was pro veda" and now this. I think you are getting confused and I have to remind you at every step what the topic was about and still I get no answers.

You know this is an open forum and anybody can check who said what. You implied that Buddha was one avatara of Vishnu (Post #1002). I argued (in your words “ranted”) it can’t be. The argument branched out of the main argument and that led to where we are now. I have myself delimited Buddhism from the main argument, by reminding you that Buddhism isn’t a theistic religion. Why are you dissembling ?

*buddhistlinks.org/Mantras.htm#g

May ask why do "enlightened Buddhists" chant gayatri mantra?

So a site, which is advertising CDs is an authentic source. Hari Om.
*www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mantra_-_Mantra_in_Buddhism/id/595476
*www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mantra_-_Mantra_in_Indo-Tibetan_Buddhism/id/595477

1. Edited?
2. Rants ignored!
3. Thats like saying prove that Buddha didn't chant "Om", spoke sanskrit etc.

One doesn't have to be genius to understand that recitation of vedic incantations was a norm in the past and even today they are chanted. Chantng "Om" is itself an incantation. So, asking for such proof is simply childish!

1. Never mind
2. Of course.
3. Nope. One is an event, and the others are practice.

In other words, “I have googled, and googled and googled some more, but alas, couldn’t find any source”.

Here’s what Gita says: 18.44
“Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities of work for the vaisyas, and for the sudras there is labor and service to others.” (Pravupada)

“Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishya (merchant class), born of (their own) nature; and action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra (servant class), born of (their own) nature.” (Sivananda)

Yes pravupada's right. And do note it is the definition/"actions" of shudra and vaishya that is being explained, born out of their own nature. It is not having anything to do with "by birth".

Again conflating. Where did I quote these verses to prove that caste was from birth. I quoted these to remind you what Gita says about the duty of “sudras”, to backup my point that sudras weren’t allowed to study, as brahmins and kshatriyas were. Why are you being so dishonest.

When, rather if, I start posting, with regard to caste, and how it is from birth, then you can cite these verses.

1) Hmmmm!
2) Nope, in previous 2 replies I talked about his actions and thoughts both depending on your reply. If you can't understand it and make me repeat like word-by-word word meanings, then "Dronacharya became Kshatriya the moment he "decided" to fight for kauravas leaving his "brahmin" work and fulfilled those actions by fighting in the war".

It doesn't have anything to do with "thought"... "alone".

But I can bet that you still won't understand.

Correct, I still don’t understand. Lets see now:

If a brahmin is attacked by a thief, and the Brahmin, instead of complying, “decides” to fight, “leaving his brahmin work” and picks up a stick to fight, and eventually does fight off the thief, does he become a kshatriya ?

It doesn’t have to do with “thought” alone, you say. But didn’t you say earlier:

…dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" the moment they set foot on the battle ground in Mahabharata.

Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya either when he stepped his foot on the battle ground or before the start of the battle is the same thing.

Give it a rest, now. Will ya.

5. Yes I was expecting that statement from u. And if you go to a buddhist forum, you will find how angrily buddhist attack Hinduism, quoting B.R ambedkar, rejecting Buddhism as a part of hinduism etc. It is almost as if you can feel the punch on your face. Go, see for yourself. And, just like a hindu doesn't necessarily means a person who is "aware" of his scriptures, similarly buddhist doesn't automatically imply someone who has read and understood the buddhist scriptures. Kalki Purana simply show you the signs of Kaliyug and how kalki will come and destroy injustice emanating out of people "irrespective" of faith. Further, the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given. It tells us about a war with China more specifically.

Still lingering on this one? Tell me seriously, is this how you gain knowledge via online tuitions? Why just quote a part of line again and again and why not quote the complete thing?

Your wish is my command. Doesn’t make too much of a difference. Does it ?

Aren't you ashmamed of being so biased against something that you don't even know the basics about?

Hari Om.

 

[karnivore]

I am extremely sorry that I am rushing through your reply, because, you do deserve a more sincere reply.

During vedic age women enjoyed a major authority over rituals. Indus civilization head were women deities.

But later the concept of caste system came in, where Brahims were given the ultimate authority (just like what happend later in Europe).

This led to various school of thoughts including Buddhism and Jainism. Most people resorted to Buddhism. Mauryan Empire was the main proponent of Buddhism.

Later during Gupta period (said to be the Golden age) Hinduism came back in line, mostly because it assimilated concepts from Buddhism. You can see why most Hindus are vegetarian now. Buddha was treated as another incarnation of Vishnu. However Buddhism still flourished in east, particularly Patliputra.

Hinduism survived because it would have been foolish to kill all Hindus (same goes for Britishers), it was not practically possible. They paid jiziya in return, later abolished by Akbar but then again continued. Some Rajputs, to enjoy royal luxuries, went in alliance with Islamic rules by giving their daughters as brides. Lots of Hindus converted to Muslims to enjoy the equal status and benefits (booties of war etc).

Sikhism came in to existence a lot later and Sikh gurus resorted to defensive battles to save fellow Hindus and Sikhs. They adopted guerrilla warfare. Its existence is quite similar to Buddhism when Hindu caste system again became rigid under Islamic rule.

Indus Civilization was not hindu.

I would agree, however, Rg Veda doesn’t talk of caste (Purusha Shukta, where the only mention of caste is found, is an interpolated text, added much later).

I would agree with the first emphasis, only partly. Including Buddha in the Hindu pantheon of gods, was a master stroke.

As with the second emphasis, I disagree. Buddhism didn’t become preponderant, through killing, but by spontaneous conversion from vedic Hinduism to Buddhism. Hinduism again gained ground through reverse conversion. Killing is not always necessary.

In any case the above narrative, doesn’t really reply why Buddhism waned. But lets leave it at that.

Well there is a richa in Rig Veda where the sage says:
'I am a poet , my father was a physician and my mother a pissan ' Rg Veda in( X-102)

And throughout the Indian history we have seen people from low caste ruling kingdoms. Shivaji is one of the recent example.

Caste of Shivaji is a matter of contention. Everybody with an axe to grind, claims him to be of his caste. However, there is evidence to prove, that Shivaji believed himself to be of Kshatriya caste and before his coronation, he convinced his courtiers about this. However, the point is not if one Shivaji or another, belonged to the lower caste. The point, is what happened to the mass, who belonged to the lower caste.

Well neo-liberals consider them as Hindu Taliban Thanks to our media too. IMO they can be defeated by one sure weapon - vote.

Count me as a neo-liberal then. Btw, RSS do not fight elections. More importantly RSS represents an ideology, which, I find reflected, in some of the members of this board.

The good thing is that Hinduism is not contrary to science, instead it has lived together with science. Indus valley civilization was one of the most sophisticated one (drainage and sewer system). Iron Pillar, invention of zero and number system. Decimal system, Jantar Mantar, rhinoplasty etc.

Carl Sagan seems to agree that only Hinduism's concept on cosmology is quite similar to what is discovered by scientific studies.

It depends how you would define “contrary to science”. In old times, science came not as a separate branch, or as quest for knowledge but as religious need. When to have yajnas, how to construct alters, when to have sacrifices etc. This trend prevails even today. Hence, all this mental contortion about how modern science was already known to the sages etc. If today I say the basis of Ayurveda is bunkum, you can expect some resolved protest, right here on this forum.

Carl Sagan was enamored with almost every ancient civilization, e.g. Incas. And it is a little ingenious to throw in his name, like that when he was on record, saying, Hindu idea of age of Universe was accidental. (Ref. Cosmos)

Oh, btw I saw some unicorns on Harappa seals:

Naughty you. It is still not pink or invisible. Is it.

 

[rhitwick]

Sorry, I was busy in some other jobs hence could not reply ur "rants".

And thats your problem. Explaining to you is like "bhains ke saamne been bajana".

Oh, then those baseless comments were ur explainations and I refused to be agree with it and I got this comment. Hmmm....

Your troll tells that you r ignorant on the enlightenment I gave long ago. i.e Read the complete GITA.

So, this is how you enlighten people. What about ur task? I asked you to prove math wrong?? Or read those topics, mechanics, newton's law etc.??
Any progress?
I'm going to skip rest conversation as karni is more efficient in that case. I would just point to a part of it.

You did not answer to my question, Do you believe in nature or not? Don't u believe nature works without human control? Do you think Sun has anything to do with "human control"? Please answer these!

Hence, you directly agree that you believe in the supreme nature or the definition of that "Me" that u consider only as a part.

I believe the nature is cause, the ruler, the enforcer of the rules itself. For a proponent of Big Bang like you, it shouldn't be hard to understand. We didn't have all the physics rules at t=0 did we? Further, why even bother on "theistic" meanings when you are an atheist yourself? And hence, consider the nature as "his" only defintion for that might be easier for you.

We simply cannot fight the nature, we need the nature of our survival and nature doesn't need us to support itself.

This is how u "evolved" (or "matured" as a theist u may resist using the word evolve).
And a few days ago, ur posts were filled with caution about global warming, how human race is responsible for it and how we should go back to caves to save nature.

Do you remember the era of "kesavashiva" in this thread, at about 1year ago. In you every recent post u r reminding me of him. U used to provide logic, good arguments but now u've come down to basic questions like the above.
Know what, he did better than u in asking those n00b questions like "who controls nature"? etc. (well, if u've forgot, his posts starts from #670 in this thread, go through them if u wish)

You know, having been a sanskrit student has its own perks.

Now, I got it why you take time to understand some logics provided by us.
Remember, once I posted "I wonder if you were ever a science student?"

No, I'm not humiliating you, or underestimating you in providing arguments. Its just that we have to more careful while talking to u in the language of science. It will help in not confusing you in certain topics. We may have to explain a bit more but we are ready to do that.

Well, things apart, I had asked some questions at that time which are still unanswered. Let me repeat them in hope that you have some answers now.

Who created us?
God.

How?
Don't know. [But science at least has its version of the procedure of how were we created]

Why are we the only living being in the universe?
God made us and loves us so much (or may be too tired) that he didn't create another earth. [But science at least has its version of reason why we are only living being in the universe ( or may not be "Only")]

When did Dinosaur abolished?
God knows. [Science also knows and can tell u at least the probable time]

Why did Dinosaurs abolished?
God killed them. [Science has 2-3 version of the reason which may not be this like one line answers]

Why did God kill them?
Don't know. He wished to kill, will that stop you questioning. [Science has reasons and would appreciate you for asking more]

How come crocs can live in water and even in land?
God made them like that. [Science can give you answer for that which may not be this like one line answers]

Why do birds fly but we can't?
God made them like that and he didn't want us to fly. [Science can give you answer for that which may not be this like one line answers]

That scientist n00b tells that 80% of my brain doesn't do anything, why?
Ya this will have a few reasons:-
-----God made us like that
-----He's a n00b, he doesn't know anything, all part of our brain is working.
[FONT=&quot]-----20% is for day to day work and 80% is reserved for God (For God's sake stop questioning!!!) [Science can give you answer for that which may not be like this, which may require ur 20% brain to work more][/FONT]

ORIGINAL POST IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VISIT

This is a imaginary conversation between a theist and a atheist. Here the atheist is asking and the theist is answering.

 

[mediator]

I remember telling you that classical Sanskrit, i.e. the Sanskrit that we speak today, is slightly different from the Sanskrit in which Mahabharata was written in. (I can only imagine what you will do if you come across the actual Sanskrit in which Rg Veda was written. And no I am not talking of Panini’s translation, that is so ubiquitous today). True to your nature, you didn’t pay heed then. After all, what do I know. But thankfully you got a taste of it today. Btw, I am no expert in Sanskrit. I have only, what you would say, a handyman’s knowledge of it.

Lets get down to business then. Shall we ?

Since translations are irrelevant here, I am not providing the translations. However, do take note that, K.M.Ganguli had arranged the chapters almost arbitrarily. Hence the chapters do not tally with the Sanskrit version. For example, Udyog Parva has 199 chapters in English translation, while in Sanskrit, there are 197. Anusasana Parva has 168 chapters in English translation, while the Sanskrit version has, 154. So on and so forth. It can be a bit tedious, if you ask me.

Yep a bit tedious. But there's not much of verification that can be done of K.M Ganguli's translations. Further, Gita has been verified and translated by different people. Krishna clearly tells about equality to all and hence stating another verse from mahabharata's udyog parva in which he says something opposite only points to the obvious mistranslation. Your verse from udyog parv is simply in contradiction to those of GITA. And since you quoted mahabharat here's more from it....

"There is no superior caste. The
Universe is the work of the Immense
Being. The beings created by him
were only divided into castes
according to their aptitude."
Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, 188


There's more to quote. Besides, I asked to do your homework on these verses too...

yudhisthira uvaca
satyam danam ksama-silam anrsamsyam damo ghrna
drsyante yatra nagendra sa brahmana iti smrtah

"Maharaja Yudhisthira replied: A person who possesses truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, sobriety, gentleness, austerity, and lack of hatred is called a brahmana." (Mahabharata, Vana Parva (3.)177.16)


yudhistira uvaca
sudre tu yad bhavel laksma dvije tac ca na vidyate
na vai sudro bhavec chudro brahmano na ca brahmanah

yatraital laksyate sarpa vrttam sa brahmanah smrtah
yatraitan na bhavet sarpa tam sudram iti nirdiset

"Maharaja Yudhisthira replied: If such symptoms are found in a sudra he should never be called a sudra, just as a brahmana is not a brahmana if he does not possess these qualities. O snake, only a person who is endowed with the characteristics of a brahmana can be called a brahmana, otherwise he is a sudra." (Mahabharata, Vana Parva, (3.)177.20-21)

Oversight again? I know you can do it.



Neways, I appreciate how you sincerely have to pointed to each "shudra". Windows Paint is a useful application. Well Done!

“Brahman” is not same as the “Brahmana”. Rejecting “Brahman” means rejecting the god. This god, has nothing to do with animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was inherent to “Brahmana” culture. “Brhamana” represented the priest class.

Still repeating? Neways, where is the "non-acceptance" of OM? I hope you did not forget OM is the part of the core also and so is "karma".

You know this is an open forum and anybody can check who said what. You implied that Buddha was one avatara of Vishnu (Post #1002). I argued (in your words “ranted”) it can’t be. The argument branched out of the main argument and that led to where we are now. I have myself delimited Buddhism from the main argument, by reminding you that Buddhism isn’t a theistic religion. Why are you dissembling ?

Exactly my point. First you bring up a definition of "moksha" you didn't know about, then you ignorantly defined maya as some "animated characters" and constantly ranting afterwards that "I meant this and that", even said Buddha was anti-veda, then ranted illogically that "this doesn't mean he was pro-veda", bringing single verses of Gita and generalising on that.........So yes everyone can check!

In other words, “I have googled, and googled and googled some more, but alas, couldn’t find any source”.

Like I said its common sense based on what has been practised on the past. I believe you will need a "source" on whether buddha and his relatives were buried or burnt after death. Google my friend!

Again conflating. Where did I quote these verses to prove that caste was from birth. I quoted these to remind you what Gita says about the duty of “sudras”, to backup my point that sudras weren’t allowed to study, as brahmins and kshatriyas were. Why are you being so dishonest.

When, rather if, I start posting, with regard to caste, and how it is from birth, then you can cite these verses.

And hence you prove my point that you don't understand "varna system" even after repeated explanations. A student, a child when studies automatically "frees" himself of "shudra" definition. He may become ksahtriya (soldier) or brahmin (teacher) or anything depending upong his actions later. So a "shudra not allowed" is out of question and simply a childish statement.

Correct, I still don’t understand. Lets see now:

If a brahmin is attacked by a thief, and the Brahmin, instead of complying, “decides” to fight, “leaving his brahmin work” and picks up a stick to fight, and eventually does fight off the thief, does he become a kshatriya ?

It doesn’t have to do with “thought” alone, you say. But didn’t you say earlier:

Do you even understand the defintition of kshatriya?

Classes were basically defined in context to how they "served the society". And I bet again you won't understand this simple defintition either.



So I already said in the start yoy may agree with its teachings and you may not. Calling it "signs of frustrations, loosing battle" etc only shows how did not adhere to the debate in the first place. And with @amitash, I asked for four religions to be specific "hinduism, sikhism, busshism, jainism". These 4 leads to a combination of 6. Where is the "intolerance" between all the 6? This is the question I asked in the start. Repeating stuff etc without adhering to my question is yet again shows perfectly how you are only trolling. So where is "Budda saying I'm the best" etc etc etc?

 

[karnivore]

Yep a bit tedious. But there's not much of verification that can be done of K.M Ganguli's translations. Further, Gita has been verified and translated by different people. Krishna clearly tells about equality to all and hence stating another verse from mahabharata's udyog parva in which he says something opposite only points to the obvious mistranslation. Your verse from udyog parv is simply in contradiction to those of GITA.

I haven’t come across any severe criticism of K.M.Ganguli’s work. There have been a few, though. But you can always verify his work against the Sanskrit texts. While doing so, always remember that the arrangement of verses in KMG’s work will not tally with the Sanskrit version, which, I believe, is generally accepted among scholars as the better arrangement of the verses.

Krishna’s lecture, in Udyog Parva, Chapter 29, was regarding the duty of the sudra. Gita, too, in verse 18.44 speaks of the duty, in no ambiguous terms as, “action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra.” The two verses do not contradict each other. They simply say the same thing, one, in MBH, in more details, while the other, in G, merely touches upon it.

If you want to argue your point, by saying something was mistranslated, you have to do more than that.

And since you quoted mahabharat here's more from it....

"There is no superior caste. The
Universe is the work of the Immense
Being. The beings created by him
were only divided into castes
according to their aptitude."
Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, 188


There's more to quote.

You are trying too hard. I have already mentioned, that when I start making arguments, that caste is based on birth, you can then, make merry, by quoting these verses. Do not show your cards, even before the game has begun.

I asked to do your homework on these verses too...

yudhisthira uvaca
satyam danam ksama-silam anrsamsyam damo ghrna
drsyante yatra nagendra sa brahmana iti smrtah

"Maharaja Yudhisthira replied: A person who possesses truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, sobriety, gentleness, austerity, and lack of hatred is called a brahmana." (Mahabharata, Vana Parva (3.)177.16)


yudhistira uvaca
sudre tu yad bhavel laksma dvije tac ca na vidyate
na vai sudro bhavec chudro brahmano na ca brahmanah

yatraital laksyate sarpa vrttam sa brahmanah smrtah
yatraitan na bhavet sarpa tam sudram iti nirdiset

"Maharaja Yudhisthira replied: If such symptoms are found in a sudra he should never be called a sudra, just as a brahmana is not a brahmana if he does not possess these qualities. O snake, only a person who is endowed with the characteristics of a brahmana can be called a brahmana, otherwise he is a sudra." (Mahabharata, Vana Parva, (3.)177.20-21)

Oversight again? I know you can do it.

No, not a case of oversight. I was under the impression that the real “homework” was to find, the word “suthra” as “sudra”. I also thought, in the excitement of fooling yourself to think that you have nailed my dick to my notebook screen, you have asked this, as an equivalent to popping your champagne. Funny part, is you still think, you have a case, because, you are still not paying attention to what I am saying. Remember what I said about KMG’s arrangement of MBH verses ? Here you go (3.179 as per KMG’s arrangement)

“Yudhishthira said, 'O foremost of serpents, he, it is asserted by the wise, in whom are seen truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, benevolence, observance of the rites of his order and mercy is a Brahmana.”
​

And,

“"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a Sudra, do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone--nor a Brahmana is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth.”
​

<I can see the sparkle in your eyes>

Neways, I appreciate how you sincerely have to pointed to each "shudra". Windows Paint is a useful application. Well Done!

Actually HyperSnap v6. But the real question is, did you learn anything worthwhile ? (And no I am not talking about how to put a rectangle around a word.)

Still repeating?

You are making me.

Neways, where is the "non-acceptance" of OM? I hope you did not forget OM is the part of the core also and so is "karma".

You are just clutching at straws. Don’t scratch the surface. Dig it. On the surface a whole lot of things seem similar, but only when you have dug in, you will start to see the differences.

“OM” in Hinduism, represents the Brahman. While “OM” in Buddhism, represents bliss. The word is same, the symbolism differs.

The concept of “karma” is not vedic. Period. Shocking, isn’t it ?

You were certainly not paying attention when I told you that modern Hinduism is not exactly vedic.

Exactly my point. First you bring up a definition of "moksha" you didn't know about, then you ignorantly defined maya as some "animated characters" and constantly ranting afterwards that "I meant this and that", even said Buddha was anti-veda, then ranted illogically that "this doesn't mean he was pro-veda", bringing single verses of Gita and generalising on that.........So yes everyone can check!

Keep on deflecting arguments. See if that gets you anywhere close to “moksha”.

Like I said its common sense based on what has been practised on the past. I believe you will need a "source" on whether buddha and his relatives were buried or burnt after death. Google my friend!

You are using “common sense” to narrate history ? Hari Om. In this debate alone, members have proved you wrong so many times over, that any other person would have actually been slightly humble. Offense is not always the best defense.

Again conflating. Where did I quote these verses to prove that caste was from birth. I quoted these to remind you what Gita says about the duty of “sudras”, to backup my point that sudras weren’t allowed to study, as brahmins and kshatriyas were. Why are you being so dishonest.

When, rather if, I start posting, with regard to caste, and how it is from birth, then you can cite these verses.

And hence you prove my point that you don't understand "varna system" even after repeated explanations. A student, a child when studies automatically "frees" himself of "shudra" definition. He may become ksahtriya (soldier) or brahmin (teacher) or anything depending upong his actions later. So a "shudra not allowed" is out of question and simply a childish statement.

And I am asking, how do you ensure that the sudra gets to study ? Gita, specifically says, they are supposed to serve. Krishna, in MBH, even more bluntly says, they are not supposed to study.

I know, if horses had wings, they could fly. But how do you grow wings on horses ? Just by wishing, I guess.

Do you even understand the defintition of kshatriya?

Classes were basically defined in context to how they "served the society". And I bet again you won't understand this simple defintition either.

You have in your previous posts, argued, by highlighting quotes from Gita, that caste is based on “nature”. Now you are saying, these are “defined in context to how they served the society.” So basically, if a person, who has the nature of a brahmin, and yet serves like a kshatriya, he becomes a khsatriya.

One more verse from Gita, this time around, 18.41

“Brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras are distinguished by their qualities of work, O chastiser of the enemy, in accordance with the modes of nature.” (Prabhupada)
​

“Of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature!” (Sivananda)
​

<Prediction: “Hence you prove that caste is not from birth”, or something to that effect>
Verse 18.41 appears to say, that it is the individual nature, that will decide what job one should do. You seem to imply division of labour defines caste. But Gita seems to imply it is the caste that defines the division of labour.

Besides, the acharyas at the battlefield weren’t exactly serving the society, but were participating in an one off incidence – the battle, just like that Brahmin in my example. So this time around, answer this question, in straight “yes” or “no”.

“If a brahmin is attacked by a thief, and the Brahmin, instead of complying, “decides” to fight, “leaving his brahmin work” and picks up a stick to fight, and eventually does fight off the thief, does he become a kshatriya ?”

Come on, dazzle me with your super intelligence. So far, you have baffled me with it.

 

[mediator]

I haven’t come across any severe criticism of K.M.Ganguli’s work. There have been a few, though. But you can always verify his work against the Sanskrit texts. While doing so, always remember that the arrangement of verses in KMG’s work will not tally with the Sanskrit version, which, I believe, is generally accepted among scholars as the better arrangement of the verses.

Krishna’s lecture, in Udyog Parva, Chapter 29, was regarding the duty of the sudra. Gita, too, in verse 18.44 speaks of the duty, in no ambiguous terms as, “action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra.” The two verses do not contradict each other. They simply say the same thing, one, in MBH, in more details, while the other, in G, merely touches upon it.

If you want to argue your point, by saying something was mistranslated, you have to do more than that.

Yep, I must apologise to KM Ganguli for acting like you and generalising on one verse without even knowing the true nature of shudras.

So here's some true nature Shudras that I found by "googling" and from various sources my friend.

Shudra was defined on the basis of
* aptitude
* impure in behaviour
* whose conduct is unclean
* inability to enlighten others
* inability to understand and comprehend vedas correctly.
* whose soul is not clean
* who could not take criticism
* those who ignored the knowledge (vedas) and people with less intellect and conscience.

...and remember, these are "not" by birth. It is "similar" to how a student mocks a teacher in a class and hence teacher files a bad report card of him. The reasons are given "why they should not study or hear Vedas". Read ...

*www.hinduism.co.za/newpage8.htm

“OM” in Hinduism, represents the Brahman. While “OM” in Buddhism, represents bliss. The word is same, the symbolism differs.

Now thats what I call "Ignorance can be bliss!". Neways OM in hinduism represents energy, knowlege, trinity etc and remember knowledge is bliss.

Further, brahman also represents the source of all knowledge. So I guess it is the "typical God form" that you were discussing about. Buddha simply cannot reject knowledge, can he?


Like I said, you need an "unbiased" mind to understand these things.

The concept of “karma” is not vedic. Period. Shocking, isn’t it ?

You were certainly not paying attention when I told you that modern Hinduism is not exactly vedic.

YajurVeda is also known as Karma Veda. Shocking isn't it?

Thats funny. A guy who is debating on vedas, doesn't even know the basics of vedas.

And we are not talking about "modern hinduism". Learn from where you started your troll.

You have in your previous posts, argued, by highlighting quotes from Gita, that caste is based on “nature”. Now you are saying, these are “defined in context to how they served the society.” So basically, if a person, who has the nature of a brahmin, and yet serves like a kshatriya, he becomes a khsatriya.

One more verse from Gita, this time around, 18.41

“Brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras are distinguished by their qualities of work, O chastiser of the enemy, in accordance with the modes of nature.” (Prabhupada)

“Of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature!” (Sivananda)

You really had me in splits.


It was the "nature" of a student that if he

* continued to show conscience, deep interest in knowledge, wisdom, respect for the teacher, he could have become a brahmin. Remember the "nature" still reflects.

Remember a student doesn't contribute much to society, but does so only after he becomes a professional

* continued to show respect to towards his teacher, and deep in interest in art of fighting and protecting people etc, could have become a kshatriya. Professionally, he engaged in the profession of battle etc.

So brahmin defending himself from some theives with stick etc isn't much of a profession or contribution to the society is it?


Tell me something, treating verse by verse, coming to conclusions fast, not reading a books genuinely etc, are these your only traits?


The rest of your post is just plain old rant marked with the symptoms of the old "karnivore" who used to taunt more and debate less genuinely. And here comes the golden line....



"Where where where is the "intolerance among these religion I stated, where is God telling that the "person" behind him is the best, where is Krishna saying Krishna is the best? Even after two three pages of debate, you are only ranting and trolling an and not telling where is the "intolerance" among all these religions!



So is karnivore going to tell about the "intolerance" which he assumes is because of "God" or "religion"? Send us your SMS to 100 and win plenty of gift vouchers! Nuff said, I think I'm already bored.

 

[karnivore]

Quit running like a headless chicken.

So here's some true nature Shudras that I found by "googling" and from various sources my friend.

Shudra was defined on the basis of
* aptitude
* impure in behaviour
* whose conduct is unclean
* inability to enlighten others
* inability to understand and comprehend vedas correctly.
* whose soul is not clean
* who could not take criticism
* those who ignored the knowledge (vedas) and people with less intellect and conscience.

...and remember, these are "not" by birth. It is "similar" to how a student mocks a teacher in a class and hence teacher files a bad report card of him. The reasons are given "why they should not study or hear Vedas". Read ...

*www.hinduism.co.za/newpage8.htm

A quick question though, why was Karna called sudra ? Which of the above criteria did he fulfill ?

Now thats what I call "Ignorance can be bliss!". Neways OM in hinduism represents energy, knowlege, trinity etc and remember knowledge is bliss.

Further, brahman also represents the source of all knowledge. So I guess it is the "typical God form" that you were discussing about. Buddha simply cannot reject knowledge, can he?


Like I said, you need an "unbiased" mind to understand these things.

Coming from someone, who is on record, claiming that he was better off not knowing his own society’s evils. Bravo.

Gita 8.13

“Uttering the monosyllable Om—the Brahman—remembering Me always, he who departs thus, leaving the body, attains to the supreme goal.” (Sivananda)
​

Prabhupada’s commentary:

“It is clearly stated here that om, Brahman, and Lord Krishna are not different. The impersonal sound of Krishna is om, but the sound Hare Krishna contains om…”

Gita 10.25

“Among the great sages I am Bhrigu; among words I am the monosyllable Om; among sacrifices I am the sacrifice of silent repetition; among immovable things the Himalayas I am.” (Sivananda)
​

Prabhupada’s commentary:

“Brahma, the first living creature within the universe, created several sons for the propagation of various kinds of species. The most powerful of his sons is Bhrigu, who is also the greatest sage. Of all the transcendental vibrations, the “om” (omkara) represents the Supreme….”

Now wriggle into OM, the definition of Brahman, and then Krishna and while at it, select and choose definitions that suit you. Now since Brahman is the one and only – the universe itself, therefore OM means everything. Nevermind, Buddha rejects this very concept of god, the apparent source of knowledge.

YajurVeda is also known as Karma Veda. Shocking isn't it?

Thats funny. A guy who is debating on vedas, doesn't even know the basics of vedas.

And we are not talking about "modern hinduism". Learn from where you started your troll

Feeling the heat, aren’t we ? Here are two quick questions for you:

In which ancient hindu text, is Yajur veda, referred to as Karma Veda ? What does Yajur veda say about “karma” that is even remotely similar to the “karma” that we understand today ?

Anyway here is a Hindu website, for you:
*www.hinduwebsite.com/conceptofkarma.asp

You do realize that, pointing at the moon and screaming that, it is actually a lump of swiss cheese, won’t really make it a lump of swiss cheese, don’t you ?

So brahmin defending himself from some theives with stick etc isn't much of a profession or contribution to the society is it?

Voila, what took you so long:

…the acharyas at the battlefield weren’t exactly serving the society, but were participating in an one off incidence – the battle, just like that Brahmin in my example.

Here’s what you had said earlier:

…dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" the moment they set foot on the battle ground in Mahabharata.

No profession here…

Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya either when he stepped his foot on the battle ground or before the start of the battle is the same thing.

No profession here, either…

"Dronacharya became Kshatriya the moment he "decided" to fight for kauravas leaving his "brahmin" work and fulfilled those actions by fighting in the war".

It doesn't have anything to do with "thought"... "alone".

OOPSIE DAISY, still no profession…

Classes were basically defined in context to how they "served the society".

Bingo. Some hint of profession.

So are you going to admit now, that you made a teeny tiny mistake earlier.

…where is Krishna saying Krishna is the best?

And I was thinking that we are here, because I showed you something to that effect. Anyway, here it is again:

“There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string” – BG 7.7


“The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me; they whose knowledge is destroyed by illusion follow the ways of demons.” – BG 7.15

“Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.” – BG 9.11


“To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other, of those ever united, I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess.” – BG 9.22

…and so begins the infinite loop

So is karnivore going to tell about the "intolerance" which he assumes is because of "God" or "religion"? Send us your SMS to 100 and win plenty of gift vouchers!

Where do I collect my gift vouchers ?

 

[mediator]

A quick question though, why was Karna called sudra ? Which of the above criteria did he fulfill ?

Just to remind you, Mahabharat is an Indian story which tells "how low" the Indian society became at some time in dvaparyuga where

* cousins did not respect their own in-laws, wives of their cousins ( example Dushahsan humiliating draupadi )
* Karna calling draupadi a Vaishya
* How for some land, brothers can fight each other
* How "varna system" got distorted and was being practiced by "birth".

Mahabharat teaches us all sorts of valuable lessons. And you are bringing examples from it? And hence, Karna being called Sudra is just another part of that lowliness. So please don't bring up the examples from these stories, to undo which, an avatar took place.

Coming from someone, who is on record, claiming that he was better off not knowing his own society’s evils. Bravo.

Gita 8.13

“Uttering the monosyllable Om—the Brahman—remembering Me always, he who departs thus, leaving the body, attains to the supreme goal.” (Sivananda)

Prabhupada’s commentary:

“It is clearly stated here that om, Brahman, and Lord Krishna are not different. The impersonal sound of Krishna is om, but the sound Hare Krishna contains om…”

Gita 10.25

“Among the great sages I am Bhrigu; among words I am the monosyllable Om; among sacrifices I am the sacrifice of silent repetition; among immovable things the Himalayas I am.” (Sivananda)

Prabhupada’s commentary:

“Brahma, the first living creature within the universe, created several sons for the propagation of various kinds of species. The most powerful of his sons is Bhrigu, who is also the greatest sage. Of all the transcendental vibrations, the “om” (omkara) represents the Supreme….”

Now wriggle into OM, the definition of Brahman, and then Krishna and while at it, select and choose definitions that suit you. Now since Brahman is the one and only – the universe itself, therefore OM means everything. Nevermind, Buddha rejects this very concept of god, the apparent source of knowledge.

Since you brought up Gita so here it is ....
"I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable om. I am also the Rig, the Sama and the Yajur Vedas." [9.17]

It is about the supreme reality the defintion of "ME" that we discussed, which contains "all pervasiveness", the "knowledge", "the nature" etc.


I advise you not to bring GITA, for I don't even have to google on it. It seems you are hell bound to potray OM as/represents GOD i.e brahma/Krishna "in the most typical sense". The definition of "ME" is not going to change because of your frustration rising out of your illogical hatred towards religion. Bringing GITA is only strengthening and highlighting my point every where.

So,

OM represents
* knowledge
* sound energy, energy that is pervading this universe
* trinity
* creation, preservation, destruction
* etc

Likewise
Brahma represents
* Knowledge (the 4 faces of brahma represent the 4 vedas)
* Universe
* His typical God form
* The four directions i.e North,south, east and west

And krishna...never mind! Read Gita!

Its sad that your google searches doesn't reveal you this simple "representations". There is no way anybody can reject Vedas without even reading it for it teaches us many things in addition to God and rejecting it means rejecting "knowledge".


So like I said, Buddha only rejected the "typical God definition".

The concept of “karma” is not vedic.

Feeling the heat, aren’t we ? Here are two quick questions for you:

In which ancient hindu text, is Yajur veda, referred to as Karma Veda ? What does Yajur veda say about “karma” that is even remotely similar to the “karma” that we understand today ?

Anyway here is a Hindu website, for you:
*www.hinduwebsite.com/conceptofkarma.asp

Me feeling heat? Nah, I'm bored by ur rants and repetitions and off-topic trolls. And this is my facial expression most of the times =>

FYI, the nature of the actions is itself called karma. Varna system is itself based on "karma". Vedas has this system. And I'm telling this to you like a teacher talls his student.

Deeds are actions, good deeds are good actions. Do you understand?

Ok, forget who called it karmaveda or where. So, Which part of this link did you not understand?
*www.aryabhatt.com/vedas/yajurveda1.htm

Shoud I give more verses citing karma in Vedas? Your point was "the concept of karma is not vedic" and now you are reduced to ranting "about a nickname for yajurveda"?

ere’s what you had said earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mediator
…dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" the moment they set foot on the battle ground in Mahabharata.
No profession here…
Quote:
Originally Posted by mediator
Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya either when he stepped his foot on the battle ground or before the start of the battle is the same thing.
No profession here, either…
Quote:
Originally Posted by mediator
"Dronacharya became Kshatriya the moment he "decided" to fight for kauravas leaving his "brahmin" work and fulfilled those actions by fighting in the war".

It doesn't have anything to do with "thought"... "alone".
OOPSIE DAISY, still no profession…
Quote:
Originally Posted by mediator
Classes were basically defined in context to how they "served the society".
Bingo. Some hint of profession.

So are you going to admit now, that you made a teeny tiny mistake earlier.

Yeah again a situation similar to "verse by "verse"?

Get a hold of what "all" I said in your mind. You r so predictable!

* Setting a foot in battle field in Mahabharat => by karma become kshatriya, contributing to the society.
* The intent in the mind is not a single statement. It proceeds with the action of "setting a foot in battle ground". Do you understand the difference between "OR" & "AND" ? I am not stating about "OR".
* I also said my statements were connected with your posts. It also means that "I thought that I was debating to someone knowledgable who could connect and who could infer what my statement means". I But Alas! Imagine, "Arjuna not being able to connect the last sentence that Krishna said, and then making him repeat, that you said this and that".
* I gave you a full fledged example as a last resort here it is, read it again and try to connect this time.....

It was the "nature" of a student that if he

* continued to show conscience, deep interest in knowledge, wisdom, respect for the teacher, he could have become a brahmin. Remember the "nature" still reflects.

Remember a student doesn't contribute much to society, but does so only after he becomes a professional

* continued to show respect to towards his teacher, and deep in interest in art of fighting and protecting people etc, could have become a kshatriya. Professionally, he engaged in the profession of battle etc.

So brahmin defending himself from some theives with stick etc isn't much of a profession or contribution to the society is it?

Originally Posted by karnivore;post#999
“There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string” – BG 7.7


“The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me; they whose knowledge is destroyed by illusion follow the ways of demons.” – BG 7.15

“Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.” – BG 9.11


“To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other, of those ever united, I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess.” – BG 9.22
…and so begins the infinite loop

The infinite loop was obstructed by my "asterisk made power point presentation" for you, where I told you their meanings, more verses and commentaries which explain it and the complete meaning of "lowest of men, evil doers" etc that is "concluded" from whole GITA and not just these single verses that you quote repeatedly out of your hatred towards religion. Again you write these verses, single verses to generalise on whole GITA? Brilliant, Remarkable!

Over sight again? And so finally you resort to the infinte loop as a last resort to cloud your mistakes? Well, you can have it! I wont reply if your next post happens to be a complete repeat and yet again failing to reveal the answer to the topic of discussion " => "Where is the intolerance that God is preaching for the rest of religions", "Where is Gurunanak saying I'm the best? Buddha saying Buddha is the best"?

You do remember the discussion with amitash don't u? Or "oversight" on that also?

Where do I collect my gift vouchers ?

Have mercy on me, stop your repetitions and trolls! And you can have it.


Like I said, what you are doing is not direct but indirect/passive which is more dangerous, not for me, but for you. Remember? So, this is only a discussion. You are the one who is taunting most of times, and treating it as battle and assuming and stating like "feeling heat, losing battle etc". So please keep your mind at rest and stop this show of "hatred".

 

[Faun]

I am extremely sorry that I am rushing through your reply, because, you do deserve a more sincere reply.

ok.

Indus Civilization was not hindu.

We cannot categorically deny it and here is some evidence:

1.
*www.tantraworks.com/img/shivaseal.JPG

*www.saivaneri.org/images/harappan-pashupati-siva.gif
Lotus Position

2.
*upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Triseal.jpg
Swastika

3.
*fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/%7Ejcarpent/images/Indus%20and%20Buddhist%20Art/Dancing_girl.jpg
Lost Wax culture of producing metal statues which still exists in India.

Count me as a neo-liberal then. Btw, RSS do not fight elections. More importantly RSS represents an ideology, which, I find reflected, in some of the members of this board.

RSS cannot win without their pawns in politics. Remember this time commies got a kick on their balls Even Shiv Sena lost its value in significant areas.

It depends how you would define “contrary to science”. In old times, science came not as a separate branch, or as quest for knowledge but as religious need. When to have yajnas, how to construct alters, when to have sacrifices etc. This trend prevails even today. Hence, all this mental contortion about how modern science was already known to the sages etc. If today I say the basis of Ayurveda is bunkum, you can expect some resolved protest, right here on this forum.

Ok. So it proves that science can co-exist with Indian religions.

And yeah science is not always right, what worked earlier can be scrapped off for something other. Similarly there may be some very stupid logics in Indian texts too.

Brahamagupta tried to make Perpetual Motion Machine, of course it was the worst idea. Obviously It didn't work.

*www.hp-gramatke.net/pictures/perpet/brahma_gu.gif

Carl Sagan was enamored with almost every ancient civilization, e.g. Incas. And it is a little ingenious to throw in his name, like that when he was on record, saying, Hindu idea of age of Universe was accidental. (Ref. Cosmos)

According to science, Universe itself is an accident. Life is also an accident. Penicillin invention was also an accident. Benzene structure was also an accident.

Well...accidents do occur.

*farm3.static.flickr.com/2220/1849106971_c7bf3ebbf2.jpg?v=0

Naughty you. It is still not pink or invisible. Is it.

I wish there was color photography then. And may be a video camera too

Atleast we may agree that unicorns did exist

 

[karnivore]

Ok this has started going down the gutter.

Just to remind you, Mahabharat is an Indian story which tells "how low" the Indian society became at some time in dvaparyuga where

* cousins did not respect their own in-laws, wives of their cousins ( example Dushahsan humiliating draupadi )
* Karna calling draupadi a Vaishya
* How for some land, brothers can fight each other
* How "varna system" got distorted and was being practiced by "birth".

Mahabharat teaches us all sorts of valuable lessons. And you are bringing examples from it? And hence, Karna being called Sudra is just another part of that lowliness. So please don't bring up the examples from these stories, to undo which, an avatar took place.

…and the award for the best contortion goes to <drumroll>……

Because MBH “teaches us all sorts of valuable lessons”, I am “bringing examples from it”. I didn’t know that something which teaches us something is out of bounds for quotations. But seriously, is that how you are going to argue now, that MBH tells us “how low” the Indian society was and therefore, example of Karna is not be considered ? You do realize that many of the “qualifications of sudra” on the list of qualities that you had earlier compiled, come from the MBH itself. I hope, you also realize, being a Hindu, how, MBH along with Ramayana, is considered as “holy” Hindu texts and the events narrated are considered as “true” events. Or that, how Gita is itself a part of MBH, and explanations in MBH are still used today, in hindu theological debates. Or that it is considered as a snap shot of the then society, however it was.

Yes, you are not the first hindu to go into such seizure, on mention of Karna’s name. Those who argue that caste is not by birth and that it is a “distortion”, find it hard to fit Karna, among others, in their scheme of things. But you are certainly the first one to actually reject Karna’s example, as an example of “lowliness”, instead of fighting it out.

I guess this where I get to say, once again, EPIC FAIL.

All said and done, you still haven’t explained by what criteria, was Karna declared Sudra. Being born of a kshatriya woman (Kunti) and devine, his nature should be that of kshatriyas only.

So like I said, Buddha only rejected the "typical God definition".

Ergo, non-theistic. Ergo, rejection of core of Hinduism. Yes I know you have done your best to prove that rejection of “typical God definition” doesn’t mean rejection of Vedas. That’s why here’s a homework for you. Remove all “typical God definitions” from your Vedas. Now tell us, how will you define:
* knowledge
* sound energy, energy that is pervading this universe
* trinity
* creation, preservation, destruction
* Universe


HINT: Since your super intelligence prevents you from understanding the primary point of an argument, and keeps you busy with peripherals, here’s the point that I am making: In Hinduism, i.e. for a Hindu, is it possible to make references (as in “explanations”) to the above list of things, without having to resort to a “typical God definition”, the same way as it is possible in Buddhism. Do quote from Vedas or whatever text you feel like, to support your claim.

And, last but not the least, Vedas are not collection of just stories or mythologies. Almost the entire corpus of the Vedas, is all prayers (mantras) and rituals, to be offered to guess who ? So do explain, if “typical God definition” is rejected, how these, prayers and rituals, would fit in the greater scheme of things.

Me feeling heat? Nah, I'm bored by ur rants and repetitions and off-topic trolls. And this is my facial expression most of the times =>

What, you become maroon ? Deep breathing is the need of the day. Hari Om.

FYI, the nature of the actions is itself called karma. Varna system is itself based on "karma". Vedas has this system. And I'm telling this to you like a teacher talls his student.

Deeds are actions, good deeds are good actions. Do you understand?

So “karma” is reaping what one sows. Ok. Then how does it relate to past lives, O teacher.

Ok, forget who called it karmaveda or where. So, Which part of this link did you not understand?
*www.aryabhatt.com/vedas/yajurveda1.htm

Shoud I give more verses citing karma in Vedas? Your point was "the concept of karma is not vedic" and now you are reduced to ranting "about a nickname for yajurveda"?

Yeah ok, I will “forget who called it karmaveda or where”. This is fun. I will make a claim. Then, when asked to support it, I will ask my opponent to forget it. I guess you were using your “common sense” here as well. Yes teacher. Whatever you say.

I had asked a question in my previous post, regarding that link only (last of the two): “What does Yajur veda say about “karma” that is even remotely similar to the “karma” that we understand today ?” Karma, in Buddhism, as well as in modern Hinduism, is not exactly, reap-as-you-sow type simple.

Yes, O teacher, please give us some more verses from Vedas, citing “karma”. And one correction. It was you, O teacher, who thought, a nickname of one Vedas makes for a good argument.

Remember what you had said about that example of Brahmin fighting off a thief. Just to refresh the memory of yours, O teacher.

So brahmin defending himself from some theives with stick etc isn't much of a profession or contribution to the society is it?

Now read on…

* Setting a foot in battle field in Mahabharat => by karma become kshatriya, contributing to the society.

Picking up a stick and fighting off a thief => “by karma become kshatriya, contributing to the society”.

* The intent in the mind is not a single statement. It proceeds with the action of "setting a foot in battle ground".

“The intent in the mind is not a single statement. It proceeds with the action of "picking up a stick and fighting off a thief"”

So why is this Brahmin not becoming a kshatriya by fighting off a thief, but the acharyas at Kurukshetra became so, doing more or less the same.

It was the "nature" of a student that if he

* continued to show conscience, deep interest in knowledge, wisdom, respect for the teacher, he could have become a brahmin. Remember the "nature" still reflects.

Remember a student doesn't contribute much to society, but does so only after he becomes a professional

* continued to show respect to towards his teacher, and deep in interest in art of fighting and protecting people etc, could have become a kshatriya. Professionally, he engaged in the profession of battle etc.

So brahmin defending himself from some theives with stick etc isn't much of a profession or contribution to the society is it?

Of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature! (18.41)

Serenity, self-restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness and also uprightness, knowledge, realisation and belief in God are the duties of the Brahmanas, born of (their own) nature. (18.42)

Prowess, splendour, firmness, dexterity and also not fleeing from battle, generosity and lordliness are the duties of Kshatriyas, born of (their own) nature. (18.43)

But,

Better is one’s own duty (though) destitute of merits, than the duty of another well performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature incurs no sin. (18.47)

One should not abandon, O Arjuna, the duty to which one is born, though faulty; for, all undertakings are enveloped by evil, as fire by smoke! (18.48 )

Now that you have confused deeds or duties with “Karma”, what gives ?

…you resort to the infinte loop as a last resort to cloud your mistakes?

Nice projection but. Lets see now.
I was the one who thought “Buddha” was prophecised in VP, until it was shown that VP is post-Buddhist text and hence, it is at best a retrofit not prophecy.

I was the one who thought Kalki puran talks of Buddhism and communism, based on their symptoms, not realizing that this is 2009 and Kalki is all set to appear at least 427,000 years from now.

I was the one who thought the word “suthra” (as spelled in Sanskrit) is not “sudra” and started beating my chest.

I am the one who thought that Buddha arranged for vedic incantation after his father’s death, simply based on “common sense”.

I am the one who thought that Buddha thought gayetri mantra as something of a premier mantra, not realizing, that the most important mantra in Buddhism is “Om Mani Padme Hum”.

I am the one who couldn’t make a distinction between rebirth, reincarnation of soul and transmigration.

I am the one who still can’t figure out the difference in symbolism of OM, in Hinduism and Buddhism.

I am the one who still thinks that karma is just about deeds.

Just a few of my mistakes, right off the top of my head.

"Where is the intolerance that God is preaching for the rest of religions"

Exactly how do you suppose the god will say something.

"Where is Gurunanak saying I'm the best? Buddha saying Buddha is the best"?

Something I had said before:

As with Sikhism, I haven’t read Granthasahib to make quotes like above. As with Buddhism, it is not a theistic religion.

Hari Om