My guess is that dalbirk ji was not referring to Brahmins as a privileged caste in today's world. He may want to elaborate on this himself. But the reference is to the "philosophies" and "social customs" that persist today and that gave rise to Guru Nanak's philosophy and Skhism
Hinduism Hinduism: Science Or Religion
The Big question:
What is Hinduism?
1. Is "Hinduism" a science or religion?"
Any religion that subscribes to hell and heaven as Hinduism and many religions do, can not have anything to do with science because the concept itself shows that they are based on fear, anger, disdain,hatred and of course punishment.
2. The Supreme court judge while defining Hinduism said: "Hinduism is a way of life".
He forgot to say for whom? For which caste is Hinduism a way of life?
For the Brahmins or for the low caste Hindus whose shadows are even abhorred by the upper crust of Hinduism?
Something to ponder!
Tejwant Singh
What is Hinduism?
1. Is "Hinduism" a science or religion?"
Any religion that subscribes to hell and heaven as Hinduism and many religions do, can not have anything to do with science because the concept itself shows that they are based on fear, anger, disdain,hatred and of course punishment.
2. The Supreme court judge while defining Hinduism said: "Hinduism is a way of life".
He forgot to say for whom? For which caste is Hinduism a way of life?
For the Brahmins or for the low caste Hindus whose shadows are even abhorred by the upper crust of Hinduism?
Something to ponder!
Tejwant Singh
This a link to a book edited by Judge Radhakrishnan, who defined Hinduism in 1995 as a member of the Indian Supreme Court. It may clear up some of the questions arising in the thread. Sourcebook of Indian Philosophy, edited by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. Princeton University Press.
A Source Book in Indian Philosophy - Google Books
Not to go too far off topic, the judge was ruling that Hinduism is not a religion. The parameters for the decision pertained to whether Hinduism met what the course considered defining characteristics of a religion.
"When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more." Supreme Court of India, "Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal", 1995. The entire ruling used to be available on line -no longer - I have not had the time to search for it.
We all know, or should know, that the word Hindu was initially used by the Persians to denote anyone who lived in the geographical realm called "Hindustan." The meaning of Hindustan has also changed historically. The word was used by Guru Nanak to mean a Brahmin living in the plains and valleys of the Indus river, and he was adopting the word "Hindu" but was referring to the hypocrisy and privileges of a particular caste throughout Gurbani. The word, "Hindu," was then co-opted by the British -- and in fact its current meaning is a 19th Century British construct. The British in all of their laborious census documents intended Hindu to mean anyone from "Hindustan" who is not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. Thus Sikhs, and Buddhists were lumped together as Hindus, and this is still the case today legally in India. A practical and nonlegal definition might be "anyone who accepts the authority of the Vedas."
My personal problem: when one actually looks at the extensive, diverse, and often very contradictory beliefs of various "traditions" within the so-called Hindu religion, generalizations are impossible. Does it make more sense to ask what do followers of Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Skahtism, the variety of different yogas, or members of various bhakti movements believe?
When a word like Hindu is taken to mean everything then it means nothing.
A Source Book in Indian Philosophy - Google Books
Not to go too far off topic, the judge was ruling that Hinduism is not a religion. The parameters for the decision pertained to whether Hinduism met what the course considered defining characteristics of a religion.
"When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more." Supreme Court of India, "Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal", 1995. The entire ruling used to be available on line -no longer - I have not had the time to search for it.
We all know, or should know, that the word Hindu was initially used by the Persians to denote anyone who lived in the geographical realm called "Hindustan." The meaning of Hindustan has also changed historically. The word was used by Guru Nanak to mean a Brahmin living in the plains and valleys of the Indus river, and he was adopting the word "Hindu" but was referring to the hypocrisy and privileges of a particular caste throughout Gurbani. The word, "Hindu," was then co-opted by the British -- and in fact its current meaning is a 19th Century British construct. The British in all of their laborious census documents intended Hindu to mean anyone from "Hindustan" who is not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. Thus Sikhs, and Buddhists were lumped together as Hindus, and this is still the case today legally in India. A practical and nonlegal definition might be "anyone who accepts the authority of the Vedas."
My personal problem: when one actually looks at the extensive, diverse, and often very contradictory beliefs of various "traditions" within the so-called Hindu religion, generalizations are impossible. Does it make more sense to ask what do followers of Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Skahtism, the variety of different yogas, or members of various bhakti movements believe?
When a word like Hindu is taken to mean everything then it means nothing.
Well If hinduism is a way of life or science then why India don't have any beef industry?
so this argument just fall apart that hinduism is not a religion because of non existence of beef industry in India.Aus desi ji has written here that Hinduism don't have any central authority but The authority that has decided that cows should not be allowed to be slaughtered or beef should not be allowed to be sold or exported have been accepted by alomost 95% of hindu's barring some keralites and south Indian hindu's.
so this argument just fall apart that hinduism is not a religion because of non existence of beef industry in India.Aus desi ji has written here that Hinduism don't have any central authority but The authority that has decided that cows should not be allowed to be slaughtered or beef should not be allowed to be sold or exported have been accepted by alomost 95% of hindu's barring some keralites and south Indian hindu's.
I agree -- a religion is not defined by industries it supports or does not support. The worship and protection of cows comes from a central Vedic belief. The worship and protection of cows is the result of a Vedic belief. It is not the cause of its own practice.
Another interesting thing about that -- there is another article posted today about the wholesale religious sacrifice of animals. Sacrifice of animals was also a practice among Hindus in Guru Nanak's time. Animal sacrifice serves/ed one purpose in the sanatan dharma-- what was it? Yet consumption was forbidden -- Why?
Another point to ponder then: Could it be that Hinduism is not a science and it also not a religion.
Another interesting thing about that -- there is another article posted today about the wholesale religious sacrifice of animals. Sacrifice of animals was also a practice among Hindus in Guru Nanak's time. Animal sacrifice serves/ed one purpose in the sanatan dharma-- what was it? Yet consumption was forbidden -- Why?
Another point to ponder then: Could it be that Hinduism is not a science and it also not a religion.
Narayanjot ji,
You are right and thanks.
You are right and thanks.
Dear Ausdesi Ji ,
Though the DAV educational institutes are very large in numbers , the number of people following Arya Samaj is very very less actually a few hundred thousand . Arya Samaj is only limited to some states of North India mainly Haryana , Punjab etc . Though the mandirs appoint some paid preists , actually these preists outgrow the mandirs over a period of time ( can be said of some Sikh institutions also ) & either start controlling the management or start a new sect sort . Morover the method of worship is of dieties ( Devi Devtas ) & Karam Kand practices only , no moral teachings/ sermons are given . Just do this & your WISH SHALL BE FULFILLED .
Dear Narayanjot Ji ,
In Rigveda there are specific mantras for Go megh yagya . What actually is this practice & is it still practiced ?
The Hindu : Beef eating: strangulating history
Indian food culture and history of asian curry recipes with food information from asia
Vegetarian Vs. Non-Vegetarian
Casteism in India and the Fallacies of Hindu Religion: Baba Saheb's writings part 6d:WHAT MADE THE BRAHMINS BECOME VEGETARIANS?
Here is another interesting article on how perfect beef eating Brahmins turned vegetarians .
Dalit Voice - The Voice of the Persecuted Nationalities Denied Human Rights
3. Why beef-eating Brahmins became vegetarians:
The first organised protest movement against Brahminism was launched by the Budha and Untouchables joined it en masse. Dr. Ambedkar has discovered that before the Aryans invaded India, the language of India was Tamil. He said the war between Budhism and Brahminism and the defeat of the former resulted in its followers being driven out of the village limits. Brahmins, who were the deadliest enemies of Budhism, adopted the trick of sabotaging Budhism by infiltrating it. They conducted a war against Budhism both from without and within. And after vanquishing Budhism, they inflicted untouchability upon those defeated.
Another ingenious method the Brahmins adopted to destroy Budhism was to give up beef-eating and become strict vegetarians. The Brahmins were the most gluttonous beef-eaters and the Vedic texts have any number of references to their indiscriminate killing of cows and eating them. Killing brought them joy. In fact, cow was then reserved for the Brahmin stomach.
The Brahmins also excelled in drinking intoxicating liquor, sex and such other merry-making. When the Brahmins gave up eating beef other Hindus also followed them. If the non-Brahmins underwent one revolution by giving up beef-eating, Brahmins underwent a double revolution. They gave up meat-eating for the first time and became vegetarians.
To my mind, it was the strategy which made the Brahmins give up beef-eating and start worshipping the cow. The clue to the worship of cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism and the means adopted by Brahminism to establish its supremacy over Buddhism". (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Untouchables, W&S Vol. 7 p. 345).
Why the Brahmins resorted such a reckless adventure, a supreme sacrifice of giving up their greatest pleasure in life? Dr. Ambedkar says:
" Without becoming vegetarians, the Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they had lost in its revival, namely Buddhism". (Ibid p. 346).
Jews of India
Brahmins — whom we have described as the "Jews of India" (V.T. Rajshekar: Brahminism, DSA-2002)— have beaten the Jews in craftiness, deceit and treachery. They wanted to beat extremism with extremism. It is a fantastic strategy. The only way to beat Budhism was to go one step forward and become vegetarians.
Today, Brahmins (barring those in Kashmir and Bengal) are vegetarians and non-drinkers, though the yuppies among Brahmins have once again started meat-eating and drinking.
Non-violence was absorbed into Brahminism which from the day of the defeat of Budhism went on changing its name and recently it came to be called Hinduism. The Vedic religion of Brahminism was sacrificed to save Brahmins and destroy the revolutionary philosophy of Budhism and thus permanently condemn India to slavery and serfdom. That is how India, which has the world's largest but the most famished cattle population, turned into a cow-worshipper as a result of the triumph of Brahminism over Budhism. It was a means adopted by Brahmins to regain their lost glory. This supreme sacrifice of the Brahmins proves that the "Jews of India" are prepared to go to any extreme and make any compromise to save Brahminism.
To them Brahminism became more important than India. Every foreign invader was invited by them to serve their selfish ends. India today is one of the poorest countries of the world, a sick nation, because of Brahminism. (V.T. Rajshekar: India as a Failed State, DSA-2004). Not only if the Untouchables are to be saved but if India itself has to be rescued, Brahminism will have to be destroyed. That is why the Untouchables, being the original owners of India, have decided to escape from the tyranny of Brahminism.
Dalit Voice - The Voice of the Persecuted Nationalities Denied Human Rights
3. Why beef-eating Brahmins became vegetarians:
The first organised protest movement against Brahminism was launched by the Budha and Untouchables joined it en masse. Dr. Ambedkar has discovered that before the Aryans invaded India, the language of India was Tamil. He said the war between Budhism and Brahminism and the defeat of the former resulted in its followers being driven out of the village limits. Brahmins, who were the deadliest enemies of Budhism, adopted the trick of sabotaging Budhism by infiltrating it. They conducted a war against Budhism both from without and within. And after vanquishing Budhism, they inflicted untouchability upon those defeated.
Another ingenious method the Brahmins adopted to destroy Budhism was to give up beef-eating and become strict vegetarians. The Brahmins were the most gluttonous beef-eaters and the Vedic texts have any number of references to their indiscriminate killing of cows and eating them. Killing brought them joy. In fact, cow was then reserved for the Brahmin stomach.
The Brahmins also excelled in drinking intoxicating liquor, sex and such other merry-making. When the Brahmins gave up eating beef other Hindus also followed them. If the non-Brahmins underwent one revolution by giving up beef-eating, Brahmins underwent a double revolution. They gave up meat-eating for the first time and became vegetarians.
To my mind, it was the strategy which made the Brahmins give up beef-eating and start worshipping the cow. The clue to the worship of cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism and the means adopted by Brahminism to establish its supremacy over Buddhism". (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Untouchables, W&S Vol. 7 p. 345).
Why the Brahmins resorted such a reckless adventure, a supreme sacrifice of giving up their greatest pleasure in life? Dr. Ambedkar says:
" Without becoming vegetarians, the Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they had lost in its revival, namely Buddhism". (Ibid p. 346).
Jews of India
Brahmins — whom we have described as the "Jews of India" (V.T. Rajshekar: Brahminism, DSA-2002)— have beaten the Jews in craftiness, deceit and treachery. They wanted to beat extremism with extremism. It is a fantastic strategy. The only way to beat Budhism was to go one step forward and become vegetarians.
Today, Brahmins (barring those in Kashmir and Bengal) are vegetarians and non-drinkers, though the yuppies among Brahmins have once again started meat-eating and drinking.
Non-violence was absorbed into Brahminism which from the day of the defeat of Budhism went on changing its name and recently it came to be called Hinduism. The Vedic religion of Brahminism was sacrificed to save Brahmins and destroy the revolutionary philosophy of Budhism and thus permanently condemn India to slavery and serfdom. That is how India, which has the world's largest but the most famished cattle population, turned into a cow-worshipper as a result of the triumph of Brahminism over Budhism. It was a means adopted by Brahmins to regain their lost glory. This supreme sacrifice of the Brahmins proves that the "Jews of India" are prepared to go to any extreme and make any compromise to save Brahminism.
To them Brahminism became more important than India. Every foreign invader was invited by them to serve their selfish ends. India today is one of the poorest countries of the world, a sick nation, because of Brahminism. (V.T. Rajshekar: India as a Failed State, DSA-2004). Not only if the Untouchables are to be saved but if India itself has to be rescued, Brahminism will have to be destroyed. That is why the Untouchables, being the original owners of India, have decided to escape from the tyranny of Brahminism.
I am sorry Dalbirk ji but I take above article as doubt.Dalitvoice.org is radical dalit site
probably supported by christians.They just spread hatred against hinduism so they can convert Dalits.
I too beleive that beef was part of ancient Indian diet but the sole purpose just to defeat budhism to stop beef eating is something I doubt
probably supported by christians.They just spread hatred against hinduism so they can convert Dalits.
I too beleive that beef was part of ancient Indian diet but the sole purpose just to defeat budhism to stop beef eating is something I doubt
AusDesi
SPNer
The cow thing is quite recent in my opinion. Its obvious as you can see that killing cows is not allowed but leather has been used in footwear for a very long time. obviously some hindus were killing cows to make leather.
AusDesi
SPNer
To be honest, I have no problem with that. Religious groups should not be giving moral teachings because morals and socities change.
e.g. Look at the 10 commandments. Christians break almost all moral commandments.
Well earlier when leather demand was not so much then leather was obtained from skinning Dead cows and oxen.Not to forget that bufaaloes goats were always killed so leather could had been obtained from them
I agree with dalbirk.
People in India statrted accepting Buddhism because it was peaceful religion. Buddhism denounce violence and preached love one another. Same was true for the Christians. Jews were violent people. Christ preached love peace. Not many Jews converted to Christianity pagans did adapt Christianity.
But why the Sikhs don’t eat beef? Why the gurus spoke against eating beef. Most Sikhs living in out side of Indian still don’t eat beef but they will eat other meat. We are not Hindus yet we follow them.
People in India statrted accepting Buddhism because it was peaceful religion. Buddhism denounce violence and preached love one another. Same was true for the Christians. Jews were violent people. Christ preached love peace. Not many Jews converted to Christianity pagans did adapt Christianity.
But why the Sikhs don’t eat beef? Why the gurus spoke against eating beef. Most Sikhs living in out side of Indian still don’t eat beef but they will eat other meat. We are not Hindus yet we follow them.
I thought Sikhism respected other faiths, as mine but perhaps I was wrong. The title of this thread has put me off. Where is science in believing in the unseen.
I am offended by this thread.
"Any religion that subscribes to hell and heaven as Hinduism and many religions do, can not have anything to do with science because the concept itself shows that they are based on fear, anger, disdain,hatred and of course punishment."
I haven't been taught anything like this.
I am not going to say anything else in defense of my faith because it needs no defense.
This has not been a discussion but veiled criticism
Members who do not accept the values of my faith should just say so:
!. Worship God
2. DO NO HARM-ahimsa
3. God is the essence of everything.
I surmise that some of you do not consider the beef industry doing harm.
Peace
Satyaban
I am offended by this thread.
"Any religion that subscribes to hell and heaven as Hinduism and many religions do, can not have anything to do with science because the concept itself shows that they are based on fear, anger, disdain,hatred and of course punishment."
I haven't been taught anything like this.
I am not going to say anything else in defense of my faith because it needs no defense.
This has not been a discussion but veiled criticism
Members who do not accept the values of my faith should just say so:
!. Worship God
2. DO NO HARM-ahimsa
3. God is the essence of everything.
I surmise that some of you do not consider the beef industry doing harm.
Peace
Satyaban
- Jul 14, 2007
- 4,576
- 1,609
- Jul 14, 2007
- 4,576
- 1,609
Satyaban ji
I am myself perplexed by this thread. Take a look at the original post. It appears to be headed in two directions at once with one direction that is very different from the thread title. Perhaps with a little focused analysis it can be remedied.
The question of science or religion is actually a good subject for Interfaith dialogs because some scholars of the Rigveda and the Bhagatagita do argue that the texts are discourses on natural laws. That centuries later the doctrinal content of religion was added.
Whether Hinduism is a religion or a broad designation for several traditions that hold the Vedas to be sacred texts is another valid topic.
Let's see what can be done to address your feelings of being offended.
I am myself perplexed by this thread. Take a look at the original post. It appears to be headed in two directions at once with one direction that is very different from the thread title. Perhaps with a little focused analysis it can be remedied.
The question of science or religion is actually a good subject for Interfaith dialogs because some scholars of the Rigveda and the Bhagatagita do argue that the texts are discourses on natural laws. That centuries later the doctrinal content of religion was added.
Whether Hinduism is a religion or a broad designation for several traditions that hold the Vedas to be sacred texts is another valid topic.
Let's see what can be done to address your feelings of being offended.
Namjap ji
I didn't understand that your earlier post was a link. Also I think the second link was better and I thank you for it.
I delved deeper into the source of the first link and found a very good example of the difference between sects. Vijay Kumar is a devotee of Krishna probably a member of ISKON who worship Krishna without the inclusion of Lord Vishnu. Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu of which there are supposed to be ten, with I think one more to come. He also considers the Gita to be scripture which I do not. I also think they are dualists.
Some of the differences between Kashmiri Shaivites and devotees of Krishna are clear cut. I or we do not believe there are or ever will be incarnations of God. I believe they and devotees of Vishnu do not have a more personal relationship with God as we do with Lord Shiva. When we reach moksha we believe the atman is reabsorbed into Shiva not with God but a part of.
I consider the Gita not to be scripture but a very important "how to" book in which Krishna teaches about yogas and the importance of doing one's duty to uphold dharma
I consider the Gita not to be scripture but a very important "how to" book in which Krishna teaches about yogas and the importance of doing one's duty to uphold dharma
I have to confess that I am not very knowledgeable about devotees of Lord Vishnu or Krishna. But all schools and sects believe that no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding. Per Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami.
Kumar also has what I consider disturbing predictions on what is to come in the year 2012. He believes it to be the end of Kali Yuga and much more. If you have not already read what he has to say about that I wish you would check it out.
Again thank you for the links
and if there is anything you wish to discuss about them please do.
BTW what is your or Sikh point of view pertaining to the Vahinis Sutra?
Peace brother
Satyaban
.
I didn't understand that your earlier post was a link.
Also I think the second link was better and I thank you for it.I delved deeper into the source of the first link and found a very good example of the difference between sects. Vijay Kumar is a devotee of Krishna probably a member of ISKON who worship Krishna without the inclusion of Lord Vishnu. Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu of which there are supposed to be ten, with I think one more to come. He also considers the Gita to be scripture which I do not. I also think they are dualists.
Some of the differences between Kashmiri Shaivites and devotees of Krishna are clear cut. I or we do not believe there are or ever will be incarnations of God. I believe they and devotees of Vishnu do not have a more personal relationship with God as we do with Lord Shiva. When we reach moksha we believe the atman is reabsorbed into Shiva not with God but a part of.
I consider the Gita not to be scripture but a very important "how to" book in which Krishna teaches about yogas and the importance of doing one's duty to uphold dharma
I consider the Gita not to be scripture but a very important "how to" book in which Krishna teaches about yogas and the importance of doing one's duty to uphold dharma
I have to confess that I am not very knowledgeable about devotees of Lord Vishnu or Krishna. But all schools and sects believe that no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding. Per Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami.
Kumar also has what I consider disturbing predictions on what is to come in the year 2012. He believes it to be the end of Kali Yuga and much more. If you have not already read what he has to say about that I wish you would check it out.
Again thank you for the links
and if there is anything you wish to discuss about them please do.BTW what is your or Sikh point of view pertaining to the Vahinis Sutra?
Peace brother
Satyaban
.
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
