Hindusim and Alcohol Don't Mix

[txbengali]

So yea, this is my first time to post on here. So I thought I would start with something that came out of discourse with my Pakistani and Indian friends.

Me personally, I don't drink, do drugs, and only smoke sheesha on occasion. And just to clarify I was born in Los Angeles :dance3: What I've noticed and I'm sure everyone here has as well, if you go to a desi party, your bond to see drunk azz desi hindu and muslim alike. Of course with Islam, its common knowledge its a sin to drink, so the muslim I know that drink can't say they don't know they are doing anything wrong.

Now on to Hinduism and drinking. It has been my experience that many people will call themselfs hindus and not really know that much about their own religion. I am Bhramin, so because of my caste and family traditions, I was taught alot, and learn alot on my own about Hinduism. That being said when me and my friends got into the conversation of hindus drinking, I whipped out the vedas and the internet and various other scriptures to find anything on the subject and here is what I found.

According to the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna of the 3 types of food, and the distinction between them. People in the "mode of ignorance" eat meat and alcohol.

In the Rigveda Alcohol is also prohibitied.

In one of the links India itself did to prohobition and If someone from Gujrat or Tamal Nadu can verifty if they are dry states were alcohol is not allowed?

Now my conclusion is that Hinduism doesn't say alcohol should not be drunk period. Krishna groups eating meat and drinking with ignorance, the Veda prohibit it but don't outlaw it. So of the hardcore sects of hinduism, in fact I'm sure this applies to most sects in general these acts are prohibitied :consumption of alcohol, eating meat, stealing, sex outside of marriage, and purity of conduct. As far as the meat part goes, I know alot of hindus do eat meat, and some scriptures do support it but the majority don't. I can't say anything, I do eat meat, but I'm trying to quite lol. As far as the evidence saying drinking isn't Okay in Hinduism, I didn't drink b4 I read all this so if someone has evidence that says drinking is okay, I'm still not doing it lol. And besides, KRISHNA says drinking is something of ignorence,
I think I'll take the Vedas and the Gita's stance on drinking over any other scriptures you can find :o

My Final Thought: Hindusim doesn't support drinking like Islam. But unlike Islam, I don't think its considered common knowledge that the holly scriptures don't allow it, I mean besides me...how many hindus on this born have read the vedas or the gita?? I think just like if u call urself Muslim you should have read the Koran and Hindus please read the Vedas or at the very least the Gita if you wanna call urself hindu :sarb:

Sources:
Report on Drinking in the Third World (http://www.unhooked.com/sep/thirdworl.htm)
700 verses of the Gita (http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/gita/complete_gita/chapter17.shtml)
BAPS - Swaminaryan (http://www.swaminarayan.org/faq/bapsgeneral.htm#1)

[Cyanor]

So tell me, what religion in the whole wide world that was not founded inside a bar has a ritual called "Let's get drunk"!!!

[FatGeezer]

So yea, this is my first time to post on here. So I thought I would start with something that came out of discourse with my Pakistani and Indian friends.

Me personally, I don't drink, do drugs, and only smoke sheesha on occasion. And just to clarify I was born in Los Angeles :dance3: What I've noticed and I'm sure everyone here has as well, if you go to a desi party, your bond to see drunk azz desi hindu and muslim alike. Of course with Islam, its common knowledge its a sin to drink, so the muslim I know that drink can't say they don't know they are doing anything wrong.

Now on to Hinduism and drinking. It has been my experience that many people will call themselfs hindus and not really know that much about their own religion. I am Bhramin, so because of my caste and family traditions, I was taught alot, and learn alot on my own about Hinduism. That being said when me and my friends got into the conversation of hindus drinking, I whipped out the vedas and the internet and various other scriptures to find anything on the subject and here is what I found.

According to the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna of the 3 types of food, and the distinction between them. People in the "mode of ignorance" eat meat and alcohol.

In the Rigveda Alcohol is also prohibitied.

In one of the links India itself did to prohobition and If someone from Gujrat or Tamal Nadu can verifty if they are dry states were alcohol is not allowed?

Now my conclusion is that Hinduism doesn't say alcohol should not be drunk period. Krishna groups eating meat and drinking with ignorance, the Veda prohibit it but don't outlaw it. So of the hardcore sects of hinduism, in fact I'm sure this applies to most sects in general these acts are prohibitied :consumption of alcohol, eating meat, stealing, sex outside of marriage, and purity of conduct. As far as the meat part goes, I know alot of hindus do eat meat, and some scriptures do support it but the majority don't. I can't say anything, I do eat meat, but I'm trying to quite lol. As far as the evidence saying drinking isn't Okay in Hinduism, I didn't drink b4 I read all this so if someone has evidence that says drinking is okay, I'm still not doing it lol. And besides, KRISHNA says drinking is something of ignorence,
I think I'll take the Vedas and the Gita's stance on drinking over any other scriptures you can find :o

My Final Thought: Hindusim doesn't support drinking like Islam. But unlike Islam, I don't think its considered common knowledge that the holly scriptures don't allow it, I mean besides me...how many hindus on this born have read the vedas or the gita?? I think just like if u call urself Muslim you should have read the Koran and Hindus please read the Vedas or at the very least the Gita if you wanna call urself hindu :sarb:

Sources:
Report on Drinking in the Third World (http://www.unhooked.com/sep/thirdworl.htm)
700 verses of the Gita (http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/gita/complete_gita/chapter17.shtml)
BAPS - Swaminaryan (http://www.swaminarayan.org/faq/bapsgeneral.htm#1)


hold on a sec. i was being told by hindus on this forum that you didnt have to beleive the scriptures and stuff and follow them to still be a good hindu?

are they right or wrong?

[txbengali]

hold on a sec. i was being told by hindus on this forum that you didnt have to beleive the scriptures and stuff and follow them to still be a good hindu?

are they right or wrong?

Its subjective. Different hindus follow differnt paths. For me without the scriputures and yogis and pundits, how would you truely understand hinduism? Base your beliefs what your parents tell you? On your misconceptions? The scriptures are the history of Hinduism, if you don't know your history, how can you clam to know anything?

If your don't follow the scriptures and eat meat, when the core belief of hinduism is that all life is scared and you shouldn't kill anything living, how are you a good hindu? And yes, I eat meat, I know I'm not suppose to, thats why I'm becoming a hindu vegan, meaning, you can't eat root vegatables, only fruits and veggies that don't kill the plant. And wny you NEVER see hindu holly men and woman eating meat. No one on this board can say they are better hindus than the holly.


But again, its subjective..no one is right or wrong.

[aiyun]

hold on a sec. i was being told by hindus on this forum that you didnt have to beleive the scriptures and stuff and follow them to still be a good hindu?

are they right or wrong?
what you need to understand about hinduism is
1. its oldddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd, latest archeological evidence in harappa says that some fo the idols found in their temples might be similar to some found in south of india. so its olddddddd, it is among the very few polythiestic religions that do exist in the world.

2. so now because it is so old, ideas have changed, as peolpe have, situations have, no religion stays the same.

3. we had class system in india, and so what happened was that from religion being a communal thing, only the priests had rights to hinduism, and so only they had access to scriptures etc, and over time as they became corrupt with power and greed, they made certain changes to the religion, which i doubt existed originally, such as u can prayer and offer food only via a priest, in my opinion the priest was just confirming his daily bread by putting himself in the middle.

4. hinduism again is not about do this and don't do this, most of our religion and mythiological figures are stories, they will tell u in ambiguous manner about certain topics, and you are left to decide, and that is wear the idea of multiple life comes in. u come on earth life after life, till u actually understand the ultimate meaning where u reach nirvana.

so to directly answer that, yes you do not have to follow scriptures to be a hindu, u dont have to go to a temple, u don't have to not eat beef, u dont have to do anything, its a way of life, but then if u do follow some of the teachings and interpret them and reach higher truths, u can reach the state of ultimate truth and ur soul can run free ...

that is my understanding atleast, after all the readings i have done

[txbengali]

what you need to understand about hinduism is
1. its oldddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd, latest archeological evidence in harappa says that some fo the idols found in their temples might be similar to some found in south of india. so its olddddddd, it is among the very few polythiestic religions that do exist in the world.

2. so now because it is so old, ideas have changed, as peolpe have, situations have, no religion stays the same.

3. we had class system in india, and so what happened was that from religion being a communal thing, only the priests had rights to hinduism, and so only they had access to scriptures etc, and over time as they became corrupt with power and greed, they made certain changes to the religion, which i doubt existed originally, such as u can prayer and offer food only via a priest, in my opinion the priest was just confirming his daily bread by putting himself in the middle.

4. hinduism again is not about do this and don't do this, most of our religion and mythiological figures are stories, they will tell u in ambiguous manner about certain topics, and you are left to decide, and that is wear the idea of multiple life comes in. u come on earth life after life, till u actually understand the ultimate meaning where u reach nirvana.

so to directly answer that, yes you do not have to follow scriptures to be a hindu, u dont have to go to a temple, u don't have to not eat beef, u dont have to do anything, its a way of life, but then if u do follow some of the teachings and interpret them and reach higher truths, u can reach the state of ultimate truth and ur soul can run free ...

that is my understanding atleast, after all the readings i have done

And this is a perfect example...we are both hindu, but have TOTALLY differnent beliefs, we both researched and came up with our on conclusions.

So the understand that aiyun direct answer of yes is only an opinion. Many other hindus would say no you HAVE to follow the scriptures or your not a hindu. I say to each their own but I will follow the scriptures.

My belief is to attan enlightnment or to reach nirvaina you must know your past and understand that you know nothing, and that is why you get a yogi or a guru to guide you, and I am bhramin, I STILL believe I need guidence from a teacher, has nothing to do with the caste system.

But this post is about Alcohol not a theological debate.

[aiyun]

And this is a perfect example...we are both hindu, but have TOTALLY differnent beliefs, we both researched and came up with our on conclusions.

So the understand that aiyun direct answer of yes is only an opinion. Many other hindus would say no you HAVE to follow the scriptures or your not a hindu. I say to each their own but I will follow the scriptures.

My belief is to attan enlightnment or to reach nirvaina you must know your past and understand that you know nothing, and that is why you get a yogi or a guru to guide you, and I am bhramin, I STILL believe I need guidence from a teacher, has nothing to do with the caste system.

But this post is about Alcohol not a theological debate.
i did read your post, i agreed with most of it, i was responding to that guy not your thread necessarily.

and before u go bitching, i do strongly believe the priests class of india fucked things up big time, and everything is between god and me. and by what u say then swami vivekananda did not reach nirvana, and lord buddha did nto attain nirvana, coz neither of these people had strict gurus.

and lastly, i am a mix of brahmin and kshatriya clan, and i do speak from my own readings of the bhagvad gita, haven't reach the upnishad's yet as I am trying to do the whole thing in sanskrit.
internet is not my source of knowledge.

and lastly, to each their own, dont u ever fucking tell me what to believe in.

[txbengali]

i did read your post, i agreed with most of it, i was responding to that guy not your thread necessarily.

and before u go bitching, i do strongly believe the priests class of india fucked things up big time, and everything is between god and me. and by what u say then swami vivekananda did not reach nirvana, and lord buddha did nto attain nirvana, coz neither of these people had strict gurus.

and lastly, i am a mix of brahmin and kshatriya clan, and i do speak from my own readings of the bhagvad gita, haven't reach the upnishad's yet as I am trying to do the whole thing in sanskrit.
internet is not my source of knowledge.

and lastly, to each their own, dont u ever fucking tell me what to believe in.

Whoooa there.....I'm not telling you what to believe I said to each there own.
Lord Budha your right on about not having a guru, but Vivekandana was a deciple of Ram Krishna. He's Bengali Rock On ! lol
Swami Vivekanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda)

Lord Budha had a religious revaltion, not all hindus are gonna have one those...maybe you did, maybe i did , maybe someone on this board did, but in general direction is a good thing no?

[abaddon]

So yea, this is my first time to post on here. So I thought I would start with something that came out of discourse with my Pakistani and Indian friends.

Me personally, I don't drink, do drugs, and only smoke sheesha on occasion. And just to clarify I was born in Los Angeles :dance3: What I've noticed and I'm sure everyone here has as well, if you go to a desi party, your bond to see drunk azz desi hindu and muslim alike. Of course with Islam, its common knowledge its a sin to drink, so the muslim I know that drink can't say they don't know they are doing anything wrong.

Now on to Hinduism and drinking. It has been my experience that many people will call themselfs hindus and not really know that much about their own religion. I am Bhramin, so because of my caste and family traditions, I was taught alot, and learn alot on my own about Hinduism. That being said when me and my friends got into the conversation of hindus drinking, I whipped out the vedas and the internet and various other scriptures to find anything on the subject and here is what I found.

According to the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna of the 3 types of food, and the distinction between them. People in the "mode of ignorance" eat meat and alcohol.

In the Rigveda Alcohol is also prohibitied.

In one of the links India itself did to prohobition and If someone from Gujrat or Tamal Nadu can verifty if they are dry states were alcohol is not allowed?

Now my conclusion is that Hinduism doesn't say alcohol should not be drunk period. Krishna groups eating meat and drinking with ignorance, the Veda prohibit it but don't outlaw it. So of the hardcore sects of hinduism, in fact I'm sure this applies to most sects in general these acts are prohibitied :consumption of alcohol, eating meat, stealing, sex outside of marriage, and purity of conduct. As far as the meat part goes, I know alot of hindus do eat meat, and some scriptures do support it but the majority don't. I can't say anything, I do eat meat, but I'm trying to quit lol. As far as the evidence saying drinking isn't Okay in Hinduism, I didn't drink b4 I read all this so if someone has evidence that says drinking is okay, I'm still not doing it lol. And besides, KRISHNA says drinking is something of ignorence,
I think I'll take the Vedas and the Gita's stance on drinking over any other scriptures you can find :o

My Final Thought: Hindusim doesn't support drinking like Islam. But unlike Islam, I don't think its considered common knowledge that the holly scriptures don't allow it, I mean besides me...how many hindus on this born have read the vedas or the gita?? I think just like if u call urself Muslim you should have read the Koran and Hindus please read the Vedas or at the very least the Gita if you wanna call urself hindu :sarb:

Sources:
Report on Drinking in the Third World (http://www.unhooked.com/sep/thirdworl.htm)
700 verses of the Gita (http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/gita/complete_gita/chapter17.shtml)
BAPS - Swaminaryan (http://www.swaminarayan.org/faq/bapsgeneral.htm#1)


In the strictest interpretation-yes it could be construed as inproper. However, I don't believe in a 'strict construction', and as a Brahmin myself, I think it isn't an egrigious act to drink alcohol. It is prudent to understand the intent of the rule, as most rules have certain intent. When intoxicated, people can become unruly and wild, but if one is responcible then the stipulation does not apply.

On the second point, if taken as a whole the Veda is more about the truth of God rather than about minute details on how to live life.

[txbengali]

In the strictest interpretation-yes it could be construed as inproper. However, I don't believe in a 'strict construction', and as a Brahmin myself, I think it isn't an egrigious act to drink alcohol. It is prudent to understand the intent of the rule, as most rules have certain intent. When intoxicated, people can become unruly and wild, but if one is responcible then the stipulation does not apply.

On the second point, if taken as a whole the Veda is more about the truth of God rather than about minute details on how to live life.

I tend to go for the strictus sense, I prolly would be classified as orthodox hindu, which my parents are not..they're shivites. And I use to be white washed and if anyone asked me religion I said athesit....self hating hindu I guess ... lol ... Still didn't drink in that point of my life, went to India on my yearly visits, dunno what happend but now I'm called "SUPER DESI" by my homeboys. Still don't drink :) Even if it was religiously okay.

[Space-Cowboy]

Anytime I read a post like this it makes my blood boil. First of all, stop referring to yourself as a Brahmin, the caste system is dead, it was created by YOUR corrupt ancestors to control the masses, my parents told me we were Kshatriya, I couldn't give two shits either way. We are not Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Sudras, whatever, we are VEDIC.

Now, on to the rest of this:


So yea, this is my first time to post on here. So I thought I would start with something that came out of discourse with my Pakistani and Indian friends.

Me personally, I don't drink, do drugs, and only smoke sheesha on occasion. And just to clarify I was born in Los Angeles :dance3: What I've noticed and I'm sure everyone here has as well, if you go to a desi party, your bond to see drunk azz desi hindu and muslim alike. Of course with Islam, its common knowledge its a sin to drink, so the muslim I know that drink can't say they don't know they are doing anything wrong.

Now on to Hinduism and drinking. It has been my experience that many people will call themselfs hindus and not really know that much about their own religion. I am Bhramin, so because of my caste and family traditions, I was taught alot, and learn alot on my own about Hinduism. That being said when me and my friends got into the conversation of hindus drinking, I whipped out the vedas and the internet and various other scriptures to find anything on the subject and here is what I found.

According to the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna of the 3 types of food, and the distinction between them. People in the "mode of ignorance" eat meat and alcohol.


If you look at the ORIGINAL Vedic scriptures, there is no mention of any prohibitions against eating meat. Alcohol is not even an issue, cuz the Original vedas are so old alcohol wasn't even around back then. The vedic texts DO NOT tell you about a "wise" lifestyle, they tell you about the nature of existence.
As far as the Gita is concerned, it's texts have been diluted by corrupt Brahmins to dictate to the masses on exactly how to "live a proper life". I'm willing to bet that the original Gitas didn't have this, [otherwise the whole battle of Shiva and Arjuna over who killed the boar would be moot]



In the Rigveda Alcohol is also prohibitied.

In one of the links India itself did to prohobition and If someone from Gujrat or Tamal Nadu can verifty if they are dry states were alcohol is not allowed?

Now my conclusion is that Hinduism doesn't say alcohol should not be drunk period. Krishna groups eating meat and drinking with ignorance, the Veda prohibit it but don't outlaw it. So of the hardcore sects of hinduism, in fact I'm sure this applies to most sects in general these acts are prohibitied :consumption of alcohol, eating meat, stealing, sex outside of marriage, and purity of conduct.


Again, the Vedas don't dictate lifestyle, the Vedas OBSERVE THE UNIVERSE!! And also, these hardcore sects are fast going extinct. That's the beauty of Hinduism, it's ability to adapt and change overtime with the evolution of the masses, while still being able to keep the CORE VALUES [ie the Vedas], consistent and consistently sacred throughout.


As far as the meat part goes, I know alot of hindus do eat meat, and some scriptures do support it but the majority don't. I can't say anything, I do eat meat, but I'm trying to quite lol.


Actually the majority of Hindus DO eat meat, just not red meat, and most definitely not beef.


As far as the evidence saying drinking isn't Okay in Hinduism, I didn't drink b4 I read all this so if someone has evidence that says drinking is okay, I'm still not doing it lol. And besides, KRISHNA says drinking is something of ignorence,
I think I'll take the Vedas and the Gita's stance on drinking over any other scriptures you can find :o



Again, Vedas aren't there to dictate lifestyle. And how do you know what Krishna said wasn't JUST in the context of the war, you have to look at MANY different sources of the Gita to get that sense of objectivity. I'm willing to bet that Krishna --[Yes I do believe Krishna existed, but I highly doubt he was any sort of a god, I personally think he was really gifted holy-man and a skilled warrior-king who was able to acheive Nirvana and used his sense of enlightenment to guide himself in life and in battle .... BUT NOT A GOD]--, said this to Arjuna simply to say "don't get drunk, or you won't be able to fight."


My Final Thought: Hindusim doesn't support drinking like Islam. But unlike Islam, I don't think its considered common knowledge that the holly scriptures don't allow it, I mean besides me...how many hindus on this born have read the vedas or the gita?? I think just like if u call urself Muslim you should have read the Koran and Hindus please read the Vedas or at the very least the Gita if you wanna call urself hindu :sarb:

Sources:
Report on Drinking in the Third World (http://www.unhooked.com/sep/thirdworl.htm)
700 verses of the Gita (http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/gita/complete_gita/chapter17.shtml)
BAPS - Swaminaryan (http://www.swaminarayan.org/faq/bapsgeneral.htm#1)

A hindu is anyone who has a spiritually sound mind and body and whose soul has a harmonious balance between the two. [Peace, Love, and Happiness for all]. You DO NOT have to have read the Vedas to call yourself a hindu [a follower of the Sanatan Dharma philosophy], that's like the FIRST thing you should be able to understand from reading the Vedas themselves!


As far as meat eating goes, I'll make a separate thread to show you how you CAN eat meat and HAVE RESPECT for life at the same time.

[twisted_heat]

Its subjective. Different hindus follow differnt paths. For me without the scriputures and yogis and pundits, how would you truely understand hinduism? Base your beliefs what your parents tell you? On your misconceptions? The scriptures are the history of Hinduism, if you don't know your history, how can you clam to know anything?

If your don't follow the scriptures and eat meat, when the core belief of hinduism is that all life is scared and you shouldn't kill anything living, how are you a good hindu? And yes, I eat meat, I know I'm not suppose to, thats why I'm becoming a hindu vegan, meaning, you can't eat root vegatables, only fruits and veggies that don't kill the plant. And wny you NEVER see hindu holly men and woman eating meat. No one on this board can say they are better hindus than the holly.

But again, its subjective..no one is right or wrong.

I'm a Jain, that's what we do.

[txbengali]

I'm a Jain, that's what we do.

Its also the Bhramin diet, but I've always looked at Jains as really really strict Hindus, of course I could be wrong, I base my knowledge of Jains on my friend and she's a veggy and also got an aum tattoo b4 I did lol. But she just says she's Hindu cause goras don't know what Jains are

[twisted_heat]

Its also the Bhramin diet, but I've always looked at Jains as really really strict Hindus, of course I could be wrong, I base my knowledge of Jains on my friend and she's a veggy and also got an aum tattoo b4 I did lol. But she just says she's Hindu cause goras don't know what Jains are

That's what I do. At over here in London, Jane is a popular name, so when I say "I'm a Jain" they look at me like
:sarb:

So I just stick to saying I'm hindu. Although my mates know I'm Jain.

[txbengali]

Anytime I read a post like this it makes my blood boil. First of all, stop referring to yourself as a Brahmin, the caste system is dead, it was created by YOUR corrupt ancestors to control the masses, my parents told me we were Kshatriya, I couldn't give two shits either way. We are not Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Sudras, whatever, we are VEDIC.

Now, on to the rest of this:




If you look at the ORIGINAL Vedic scriptures, there is no mention of any prohibitions against eating meat. Alcohol is not even an issue, cuz the Original vedas are so old alcohol wasn't even around back then. The vedic texts DO NOT tell you about a "wise" lifestyle, they tell you about the nature of existence.
As far as the Gita is concerned, it's texts have been diluted by corrupt Brahmins to dictate to the masses on exactly how to "live a proper life". I'm willing to bet that the original Gitas didn't have this, [otherwise the whole battle of Shiva and Arjuna over who killed the boar would be moot]



Again, the Vedas don't dictate lifestyle, the Vedas OBSERVE THE UNIVERSE!! And also, these hardcore sects are fast going extinct. That's the beauty of Hinduism, it's ability to adapt and change overtime with the evolution of the masses, while still being able to keep the CORE VALUES [ie the Vedas], consistent and consistently sacred throughout.



Actually the majority of Hindus DO eat meat, just not red meat, and most definitely not beef.



Again, Vedas aren't there to dictate lifestyle. And how do you know what Krishna said wasn't JUST in the context of the war, you have to look at MANY different sources of the Gita to get that sense of objectivity. I'm willing to bet that Krishna --[Yes I do believe Krishna existed, but I highly doubt he was any sort of a god, I personally think he was really gifted holy-man and a skilled warrior-king who was able to acheive Nirvana and used his sense of enlightenment to guide himself in life and in battle .... BUT NOT A GOD]--, said this to Arjuna simply to say "don't get drunk, or you won't be able to fight."



A hindu is anyone who has a spiritually sound mind and body and whose soul has a harmonious balance between the two. [Peace, Love, and Happiness for all]. You DO NOT have to have read the Vedas to call yourself a hindu [a follower of the Sanatan Dharma philosophy], that's like the FIRST thing you should be able to understand from reading the Vedas themselves!


As far as meat eating goes, I'll make a separate thread to show you how you CAN eat meat and HAVE RESPECT for life at the same time.

Firstly Don't EVER tell me how to refer to MYSELF. Caste system has be banned if you think its dead, your out of your mind. If it was dead, parents wouldn't care about there children marrying there own caste, or if you go to any one of those Shaadi sites, they wouldn't ask for your caste. Sorry Dude, no matter what you want to believe the caste system is intertwined with the Hindu culture, deal with it. I am Bhramin, and will refer to myself as such. And you're entitled to your interpitation of hindusim, and I'm entitled to mine. YOUR belief isn't the one and only way, and neither is mine, get over yourself. And yes, Most hindus do eat meat, read more carefully I was reffering to most scriptures say you shouldn't eat meat, sorry If that wasn't clear.

Now Again, This post is about Alcohol, not trying to prove that if Hindus don't believe your hindu ideas that it "makes your blood boil" :rolleyes:

And anceint Vedic scripture does make reference to anything that would alter your normal behavior. Which alcohol does, and alcohol is pretty dang ancient too, so don't say there wasn't alcohol in vedic times, thats just plain incorrect.

[txbengali]

Good Thread On Meat Eating (http://www.hindunet.org/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=vegetarian&Number=9808&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Also good thread (http://www.hindunet.org/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=20798&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Great Read On No Drinking, No Illict Sex, or Meat EAting (http://www.salagram.net/Regs4Freedom.html)
quote from above : Intoxication refers to the taking into the body of various substances that are not required for bodily maintenance and have stimulating or depressive effects on the mind and body. Under this heading, the Vedic Scriptures include everything from tea, coffee and tobacco, with their caffeine and nicotine, to liquor and other more powerful drugs. Countless people in this age depend on some such intoxicants for stimulation or relief from anxiety, but any objective observer will understand that such enjoyment or relief is only transitory and therefore has no real substance.

[FatGeezer]

whoah! didnt mean to start a fire! Im seriously intrigued.

I find it hard to grasp (maybe because of the way my methodical mind works) how a religion can be left open ended (before you jump on my back IM NOT critisicing, merely trying to learn and understand) to decide for oneself whats right and whats wrong.

Surely even an axe murdere may think he's right doing what he's doing but does that make it right? In my opinion the whole idea of a religion is to set boundaries, wether they be moral or ethic, and to lay down the law in terms of everyday life. Laws need to be set by the 'almighty religion' whatever it may be as man is inferior and less capacitated to make such decisions. As such id expect the answer to 'can you eat beef' to be a clearly defined yes or no. From my hindu freinds i get the jist that theyre not supposed but do so when theyre parents arent looking! just my experience.

If a religion is left to each individual to interpret doesnt that mean that everyone has their own different religion that envelopes theyre life and doings? Doesnt that mean then everyone is beleiving in different things slightly or majorly? Then how can that be classed as the same religion when the beleifs are so different.

If:
person A beleives that the colour YELLOW is BLACK
person B beleives that the colour WHITE is BLACK
person C beleives that the colour BLACK is BLACK

how can we say all three are correct when we know from our point of reference (a colour chart lets say) what black is?
So how can a religion be different for different people from its point of reference (which would be its fundamental beleifs)

On a sidenote (and again IM NOT CRITICISING hindus here) I picked up somewhere above that the reason for not drinking alcohol was the effect it had, so as long as you are not intoxicated it is ok. Ive come across this argument by some people in Islam also who drink, but the fact of the matter is, WE AS HUMANS are unable to decide wether we are intoxicated or not so the ruling should be simple. No drinking. In fact most when you look at most cases of drunk drivers or just intoxicated people they are usuall adament theyre not drunk at all, even when legless sometimes. This argument i find used by people who know theyre in the wrong really and are just weak in faith and dont wanna be told the truth cos home truths hurt (Im talking bout muslims here).

[FatGeezer]

Firstly Don't EVER tell me how to refer to MYSELF. Caste system has be banned if you think its dead, your out of your mind. If it was dead, parents wouldn't care about there children marrying there own caste, or if you go to any one of those Shaadi sites, they wouldn't ask for your caste. Sorry Dude, no matter what you want to believe the caste system is intertwined with the Hindu culture, deal with it. I am Bhramin, and will refer to myself as such. And you're entitled to your interpitation of hindusim, and I'm entitled to mine. YOUR belief isn't the one and only way, and neither is mine, get over yourself. And yes, Most hindus do eat meat, read more carefully I was reffering to most scriptures say you shouldn't eat meat, sorry If that wasn't clear.

Now Again, This post is about Alcohol, not trying to prove that if Hindus don't believe your hindu ideas that it "makes your blood boil" :rolleyes:

And anceint Vedic scripture does make reference to anything that would alter your normal behavior. Which alcohol does, and alcohol is pretty dang ancient too, so don't say there wasn't alcohol in vedic times, thats just plain incorrect.

I have to agree with him that even though they may be wrong or denounced it is a fact that caste systems (unfortunately for some) still do exist in society.

Damn they even exist in 'muslim' people from pakistan and stuff even though everyones supposed to be equal because the oldies find it hard to forget theyre roots.

[txbengali]

whoah! didnt mean to start a fire! Im seriously intrigued.

I find it hard to grasp (maybe because of the way my methodical mind works) how a religion can be left open ended (before you jump on my back IM NOT critisicing, merely trying to learn and understand) to decide for oneself whats right and whats wrong.

Surely even an axe murdere may think he's right doing what he's doing but does that make it right? In my opinion the whole idea of a religion is to set boundaries, wether they be moral or ethic, and to lay down the law in terms of everyday life. Laws need to be set by the 'almighty religion' whatever it may be as man is inferior and less capacitated to make such decisions. As such id expect the answer to 'can you eat beef' to be a clearly defined yes or no. From my hindu freinds i get the jist that theyre not supposed but do so when theyre parents arent looking! just my experience.

If a religion is left to each individual to interpret doesnt that mean that everyone has their own different religion that envelopes theyre life and doings? Doesnt that mean then everyone is beleiving in different things slightly or majorly? Then how can that be classed as the same religion when the beleifs are so different.

If:
person A beleives that the colour YELLOW is BLACK
person B beleives that the colour WHITE is BLACK
person C beleives that the colour BLACK is BLACK

how can we say all three are correct when we know from our point of reference (a colour chart lets say) what black is?
So how can a religion be different for different people from its point of reference (which would be its fundamental beleifs)

On a sidenote (and again IM NOT CRITICISING hindus here) I picked up somewhere above that the reason for not drinking alcohol was the effect it had, so as long as you are not intoxicated it is ok. Ive come across this argument by some people in Islam also who drink, but the fact of the matter is, WE AS HUMANS are unable to decide wether we are intoxicated or not so the ruling should be simple. No drinking. In fact most when you look at most cases of drunk drivers or just intoxicated people they are usuall adament theyre not drunk at all, even when legless sometimes. This argument i find used by people who know theyre in the wrong really and are just weak in faith and dont wanna be told the truth cos home truths hurt (Im talking bout muslims here).

The Gita and the Vedas DO SET BOUNDER and how one should live their lives. Of course you have to read them or believe in reading them to know what they are :sarb:

Even outside of a religious point of view the scriptures are the history of our ansectors, wheither your hindu or not, if ur desi that is. Just for the sake of knowing your history not even for religious enlightnment, why would you not at least read the veda or gita. Living your life by their example is another issue all together, and is strictly a personal choice. I only said people who say they are Hindu should at least read the Vedas or the Gita not live their life by them...jeez....

And for those Hindus that forget and Non Hindus that want to understand, their are literally thousands of schools or sects of Hinduism, everyone is differnt, some adhear to the scriptures some don't, some are veggie, some aren't, but they are all differnt paths to the ultimate goal of enlightnment and should all be respected.

[FatGeezer]

The Gita and the Vedas DO SET BOUNDER and how one should live their lives. Of course you have to read them or believe in reading them to know what they are :sarb:

Even outside of a religious point of view the scriptures are the history of our ansectors, wheither your hindu or not, if ur desi that is. Just for the sake of knowing your history not even for religious enlightnment, why would you not at least read the veda or gita. Living your life by their example is another issue all together, and is strictly a personal choice. I only said people who say they are Hindu should at least read the Vedas or the Gita not live their life by them...jeez....


so can someone conclusively tell me some fundamental boundaries of hinduism that EVERYONE agrees on?

In christianity/judaism/islam there are firmly set boundaries that if crossed are classified as 'sin':
Thou shalt not steal.... etc etc

So what CONCLUSIVELY would be a 'sin' in a hindu point of view?

[adren@line]

Anytime I read a post like this it makes my blood boil. First of all, stop referring to yourself as a Brahmin, the caste system is dead, it was created by YOUR corrupt ancestors to control the masses, my parents told me we were Kshatriya, I couldn't give two shits either way. We are not Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Sudras, whatever, we are VEDIC.

Now, on to the rest of this:




If you look at the ORIGINAL Vedic scriptures, there is no mention of any prohibitions against eating meat. Alcohol is not even an issue, cuz the Original vedas are so old alcohol wasn't even around back then. The vedic texts DO NOT tell you about a "wise" lifestyle, they tell you about the nature of existence.
As far as the Gita is concerned, it's texts have been diluted by corrupt Brahmins to dictate to the masses on exactly how to "live a proper life". I'm willing to bet that the original Gitas didn't have this, [otherwise the whole battle of Shiva and Arjuna over who killed the boar would be moot]



Again, the Vedas don't dictate lifestyle, the Vedas OBSERVE THE UNIVERSE!! And also, these hardcore sects are fast going extinct. That's the beauty of Hinduism, it's ability to adapt and change overtime with the evolution of the masses, while still being able to keep the CORE VALUES [ie the Vedas], consistent and consistently sacred throughout.



Actually the majority of Hindus DO eat meat, just not red meat, and most definitely not beef.



Again, Vedas aren't there to dictate lifestyle. And how do you know what Krishna said wasn't JUST in the context of the war, you have to look at MANY different sources of the Gita to get that sense of objectivity. I'm willing to bet that Krishna --[Yes I do believe Krishna existed, but I highly doubt he was any sort of a god, I personally think he was really gifted holy-man and a skilled warrior-king who was able to acheive Nirvana and used his sense of enlightenment to guide himself in life and in battle .... BUT NOT A GOD]--, said this to Arjuna simply to say "don't get drunk, or you won't be able to fight."



A hindu is anyone who has a spiritually sound mind and body and whose soul has a harmonious balance between the two. [Peace, Love, and Happiness for all]. You DO NOT have to have read the Vedas to call yourself a hindu [a follower of the Sanatan Dharma philosophy], that's like the FIRST thing you should be able to understand from reading the Vedas themselves!


As far as meat eating goes, I'll make a separate thread to show you how you CAN eat meat and HAVE RESPECT for life at the same time.


chillax man.

He has his beliefs and interpretations, and you have yours.
That is Hinduism.

No need to argue about it.

Muslims may argue about it and kill each other over differences of belief within the same religion, but overall, Hindus do not, and shouldnt.

:)

[FatGeezer]

chillax man.

He has his beliefs and interpretations, and you have yours.
That is Hinduism.

No need to argue about it.

Muslims may argue about it and kill each other over differences of belief within the same religion, but overall, Hindus do not, and shouldnt.

:)


so would you call txbengali an 'extreme' or 'fundamentalist' hindu?

[txbengali]

so can someone conclusively tell me some fundamental boundaries of hinduism that EVERYONE agrees on?

In christianity/judaism/islam there are firmly set boundaries that if crossed are classified as 'sin':
Thou shalt not steal.... etc etc

So what CONCLUSIVELY would be a 'sin' in a hindu point of view?

The Think your not understanding is there isn't a conclusive "sin" list. Their are list in the scriptures and differnt sects have list, but some people say the ones who don't follow scripture will have their own ideas.

This is what Vivekanda would say about sin:
There is only one sin, though its forms are numberless. And that is self centred desire, which runs counter to the spiritual law of the universe. Sin on the moral plane corresponds to disease on the physical plane, error on the intellectual plane and ajnana on the spiritual plane. Man in his ajnana or blindness thinks that he is a separate self with interests of his own apart from those of the other beings in the universe.

[FatGeezer]

The Think your not understanding is there isn't a conclusive "sin" list. Their are list in the scriptures and differnt sects have list, but some people say the ones who don't follow scripture will have their own ideas.

This is what Vivekanda would say about sin:
There is only one sin, though its forms are numberless. And that is self centred desire, which runs counter to the spiritual law of the universe. Sin on the moral plane corresponds to disease on the physical plane, error on the intellectual plane and ajnana on the spiritual plane. Man in his ajnana or blindness thinks that he is a separate self with interests of his own apart from those of the other beings in the universe.


so if a hindu murders or steals that may not be a 'sin' in his eyes because his interpretation of hinduism makes it ok for him to do so?

[txbengali]

chillax man.

He has his beliefs and interpretations, and you have yours.
That is Hinduism.

No need to argue about it.

Muslims may argue about it and kill each other over differences of belief within the same religion, but overall, Hindus do not, and shouldnt.

:)

You forgot one thing on your banner : 1657 - 1676 Shivaji finds the Maratha Kindgom and with an all Hindu Army destorys Mogul Empire in India ;)

[txbengali]

so if a hindu murders or steals that may not be a 'sin' in his eyes because his interpretation of hinduism makes it ok for him to do so?

Murder and Stealing are self centered desires, so they are sins. But if they want to believe that they murder and stealing aren't sins, the can, just like the Islmaic terrorist use their religious beliefs as justification for what they why can't Hindus? It doesn't mean that its not a Sin, they just belief it not to be.

[FatGeezer]

You forgot one thing on your banner : 1657 - 1676 Shivaji finds the Maratha Kindgom and with an all Hindu Army destorys Mogul Empire in India ;)

its ok. he doesnt wanna show hindus as people that may have killed...

[DesiByChoice]

So yea, this is my first time to post on here. So I thought I would start with something that came out of discourse with my Pakistani and Indian friends.

Me personally, I don't drink, do drugs, and only smoke sheesha on occasion. And just to clarify I was born in Los Angeles :dance3: What I've noticed and I'm sure everyone here has as well, if you go to a desi party, your bond to see drunk azz desi hindu and muslim alike. Of course with Islam, its common knowledge its a sin to drink, so the muslim I know that drink can't say they don't know they are doing anything wrong.

Now on to Hinduism and drinking. It has been my experience that many people will call themselfs hindus and not really know that much about their own religion. I am Bhramin, so because of my caste and family traditions, I was taught alot, and learn alot on my own about Hinduism. That being said when me and my friends got into the conversation of hindus drinking, I whipped out the vedas and the internet and various other scriptures to find anything on the subject and here is what I found.

According to the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna of the 3 types of food, and the distinction between them. People in the "mode of ignorance" eat meat and alcohol.

In the Rigveda Alcohol is also prohibitied.

In one of the links India itself did to prohobition and If someone from Gujrat or Tamal Nadu can verifty if they are dry states were alcohol is not allowed?

Now my conclusion is that Hinduism doesn't say alcohol should not be drunk period. Krishna groups eating meat and drinking with ignorance, the Veda prohibit it but don't outlaw it. So of the hardcore sects of hinduism, in fact I'm sure this applies to most sects in general these acts are prohibitied :consumption of alcohol, eating meat, stealing, sex outside of marriage, and purity of conduct. As far as the meat part goes, I know alot of hindus do eat meat, and some scriptures do support it but the majority don't. I can't say anything, I do eat meat, but I'm trying to quite lol. As far as the evidence saying drinking isn't Okay in Hinduism, I didn't drink b4 I read all this so if someone has evidence that says drinking is okay, I'm still not doing it lol. And besides, KRISHNA says drinking is something of ignorence,
I think I'll take the Vedas and the Gita's stance on drinking over any other scriptures you can find :o

My Final Thought: Hindusim doesn't support drinking like Islam. But unlike Islam, I don't think its considered common knowledge that the holly scriptures don't allow it, I mean besides me...how many hindus on this born have read the vedas or the gita?? I think just like if u call urself Muslim you should have read the Koran and Hindus please read the Vedas or at the very least the Gita if you wanna call urself hindu :sarb:

Sources:
Report on Drinking in the Third World (http://www.unhooked.com/sep/thirdworl.htm)
700 verses of the Gita (http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/gita/complete_gita/chapter17.shtml)
BAPS - Swaminaryan (http://www.swaminarayan.org/faq/bapsgeneral.htm#1)
Post significance?

I realize your point is to state that drinking is prohibited among hindus yet not commonly known or practiced.

I agree, drinking alcohol is common between the 21st century population old or young. We are living in kalyug, in which as per gods, man will go through lots of deeds of ignorance and plain stupidity.

This yug will pass with a cleanse at the end, I don't quite know the timing, but it will happen sooner or later.

As far as different beliefs of hindus, its very true. Today, most "individuals" follow what is suited to them and take what they can practice and discard the rest. Not a good thing.

To say, that Brahmin's know more about hinduism is not a wrong statement, but highly subjective. I am Khatri; I know what I do right and what I do wrong. I choose to practice Hindiusm in my way and as long as I am content with myself, I have nothing to loose in front of dharma and karma.

Also note that the hindu teachings have changed over the course of hte last 1000 years as they have been passed on from person and generation. What you know might not be exactly what lord krisha or rama intended for us to follow. Hence there are many different versions of all scriptures and interpretations.

In the end, I know one thing about being Hindu, believes in one god that is within you and on the outside and to find peace.

[txbengali]

its ok. he doesnt wanna show hindus as people that may have killed...

Well I was just pointing out that It was the Hindus that beat the Moguls, but yea, Hindus have killed, we are not buddist, buddist believe no volience for any reason, thats how the moguls came to power in the first place because india was at a time majority buddist. Hindus believe in non volience, unless you have no choice but to kick some booty :) Ie. Mahabharat, Bhagavagita, etc

[FatGeezer]

Murder and Stealing are self centered desires, so they are sins. But if they want to believe that they murder and stealing aren't sins, the can, just like the Islmaic terrorist use their religious beliefs as justification for what they why can't Hindus? It doesn't mean that its not a Sin, they just belief it not to be.

il ignore the comment about the islamic terrorists as i dont want this thread to end up being a hindu vs muslim bashing thread that all the others end up being. i genuinely am trying to understand.

But surely everything materialistic is a self centred desire so does that contribute to being a sin?

To want a bigger house, or a flashy car, or to have sex with a pretty girl - theyre all self cented desires. does that make it a sin? (in islam showing off is considered wrong).

So just like rastaferans may get away with smoking marijuana in a court of law because it is part of their religion would i get off with murder because i consider it to be my religion?

[Space-Cowboy]

Firstly Don't EVER tell me how to refer to MYSELF. Caste system has be banned if you think its dead, your out of your mind. If it was dead, parents wouldn't care about there children marrying there own caste, or if you go to any one of those Shaadi sites, they wouldn't ask for your caste. Sorry Dude, no matter what you want to believe the caste system is intertwined with the Hindu culture, deal with it. I am Bhramin, and will refer to myself as such. And you're entitled to your interpitation of hindusim, and I'm entitled to mine. YOUR belief isn't the one and only way, and neither is mine, get over yourself. And yes, Most hindus do eat meat, read more carefully I was reffering to most scriptures say you shouldn't eat meat, sorry If that wasn't clear.

Now Again, This post is about Alcohol, not trying to prove that if Hindus don't believe your hindu ideas that it "makes your blood boil" :rolleyes:

And anceint Vedic scripture does make reference to anything that would alter your normal behavior. Which alcohol does, and alcohol is pretty dang ancient too, so don't say there wasn't alcohol in vedic times, thats just plain incorrect.


The Vedas do NOT set boundarys, they give you guidlines. And the Keyword "intoxication" can refer to anything, it doesn't point to alcohol directly..... Secondly, if you refer to yourself as a Brahmin, and follow the Brahmin way that you say that your 'rents brought you up as, then you support the caste system and it's lack of civility.

On a final note? Do you know how old the original Vedas were? 8000+ B.C.
Do you know when Alcohol was first discovered/created? Mesopotamia c. 3500 B.C.

[txbengali]

Post significance?

I realize your point is to state that drinking is prohibited among hindus yet not commonly known or practiced.

I agree, drinking alcohol is common between the 21st century population old or young. We are living in kalyug, in which as per gods, man will go through lots of deeds of ignorance and plain stupidity.

This yug will pass with a cleanse at the end, I don't quite know the timing, but it will happen sooner or later.

As far as different beliefs of hindus, its very true. Today, most "individuals" follow what is suited to them and take what they can practice and discard the rest. Not a good thing.

To say, that Brahmin's know more about hinduism is not a wrong statement, but highly subjective. I am Khatri; I know what I do right and what I do wrong. I choose to practice Hindiusm in my way and as long as I am content with myself, I have nothing to loose in front of dharma and karma.

Also note that the hindu teachings have changed over the course of hte last 1000 years as they have been passed on from person and generation. What you know might not be exactly what lord krisha or rama intended for us to follow. Hence there are many different versions of all scriptures and interpretations.

In the end, I know one thing about being Hindu, believes in one god that is within you and on the outside and to find peace.

I would say preist and hollymen know the most about hinduism, and now a days since the caste system is not practices, you don't have to be born Bhramin to be one, Bhramin are any hindu that basically dedicate there lives to God. And yes, according to the RigVeda we are in the Age of Kali (assuming you mean that also) But it does also tell those who don't want to be corrupted in the age, that you sound not drink , eat meat, have illict sex, etc.

[txbengali]

The Vedas do NOT set boundarys, they give you guidlines. And the Keyword "intoxication" can refer to anything, it doesn't point to alcohol directly..... Secondly, if you refer to yourself as a Brahmin, and follow the Brahmin way that you say that your 'rents brought you up as, then you support the caste system and it's lack of civility.

On a final note? Do you know how old the original Vedas were?
8000+ B.C. <-----You site a realy really bad sourse, so so off
Do you know when Alcohol was first discovered/created? Mesopotamia c. 3500 B.C.

Wrong, the Vedas were first written down in 1500BC actually. So If the Vedas were written down in 1500BC, after teh Mesopotamias, well then, they proly knew wat alcohol was. It was passed on verbal before that but no one knows how old hinduism really is, but nice try.
Veda History (http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/texts/vedas.htm)

My parents raised me how they were raised, how there parents were raised, and so on for 4,000 + yrs. I don't nessecarly support the caste system, but I do live my live like my ancestors did and honor that path. Shoot the guy who started my blood line acutally wrote a chapter of the vedas. Hence why I'm bhramin.

[zeeweed]

So yea, this is my first time to post on here. So I thought I would start with something that came out of discourse with my Pakistani and Indian friends.

Me personally, I don't drink, do drugs, and only smoke sheesha on occasion. And just to clarify I was born in Los Angeles :dance3: What I've noticed and I'm sure everyone here has as well, if you go to a desi party, your bond to see drunk azz desi hindu and muslim alike. Of course with Islam, its common knowledge its a sin to drink, so the muslim I know that drink can't say they don't know they are doing anything wrong.

Now on to Hinduism and drinking. It has been my experience that many people will call themselfs hindus and not really know that much about their own religion. I am Bhramin, so because of my caste and family traditions, I was taught alot, and learn alot on my own about Hinduism. That being said when me and my friends got into the conversation of hindus drinking, I whipped out the vedas and the internet and various other scriptures to find anything on the subject and here is what I found.

According to the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna of the 3 types of food, and the distinction between them. People in the "mode of ignorance" eat meat and alcohol.

In the Rigveda Alcohol is also prohibitied.

In one of the links India itself did to prohobition and If someone from Gujrat or Tamal Nadu can verifty if they are dry states were alcohol is not allowed?

Now my conclusion is that Hinduism doesn't say alcohol should not be drunk period. Krishna groups eating meat and drinking with ignorance, the Veda prohibit it but don't outlaw it. So of the hardcore sects of hinduism, in fact I'm sure this applies to most sects in general these acts are prohibitied :consumption of alcohol, eating meat, stealing, sex outside of marriage, and purity of conduct. As far as the meat part goes, I know alot of hindus do eat meat, and some scriptures do support it but the majority don't. I can't say anything, I do eat meat, but I'm trying to quite lol. As far as the evidence saying drinking isn't Okay in Hinduism, I didn't drink b4 I read all this so if someone has evidence that says drinking is okay, I'm still not doing it lol. And besides, KRISHNA says drinking is something of ignorence,
I think I'll take the Vedas and the Gita's stance on drinking over any other scriptures you can find :o

My Final Thought: Hindusim doesn't support drinking like Islam. But unlike Islam, I don't think its considered common knowledge that the holly scriptures don't allow it, I mean besides me...how many hindus on this born have read the vedas or the gita?? I think just like if u call urself Muslim you should have read the Koran and Hindus please read the Vedas or at the very least the Gita if you wanna call urself hindu :sarb:

Sources:
Report on Drinking in the Third World (http://www.unhooked.com/sep/thirdworl.htm)
700 verses of the Gita (http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/gita/complete_gita/chapter17.shtml)
BAPS - Swaminaryan (http://www.swaminarayan.org/faq/bapsgeneral.htm#1)


well, there goes,MOST all Star Entertainment $$$$$$

:p

[Space-Cowboy]

chillax man.

He has his beliefs and interpretations, and you have yours.
That is Hinduism.

No need to argue about it.

Muslims may argue about it and kill each other over differences of belief within the same religion, but overall, Hindus do not, and shouldnt.

:)

But don't you understand, the HUGE problems that come about as a result of his thinking. Different interpretations yes, misinterpretations no. Lemme go into detail:

1) 'We are all One' --This fundamental belief of Vedism, specifically cannot happen when "higher castes" place themselves as more important than that of 'lower castes'.

2) Making the 'lower castes' feel inferior in this way makes them more likely to convert, and deny themselves of what I believe is one of the richest philosophies mankind has discovered.

[txbengali]

But don't you understand, the HUGE problems that come about as a result of his thinking. Different interpretations yes, misinterpretations no. Lemme go into detail:

1) 'We are all One' --This fundamental belief of Vedism, specifically cannot happen when "higher castes" place themselves as more important than that of 'lower castes'.

2) Making the 'lower castes' feel inferior in this way makes them more likely to convert, and deny themselves of what I believe is one of the richest philosophies mankind has discovered.

Misinterperations? You think the vedas are twice as old as they are, you are misinformed. I'm not the one trying to cause issues, everyone he stated there beliefs that contradict me, and I said thats cool, you "get heated" lol....people like you are the problem.

And as I said, anyone can be Bhramin, I don't belive In the caste system, but I was born Bhramin, and I choose to live that path.

Now get off your broken high horse, and stay out of the thread if you can't stay on topic. Or did you forget to read what this thread is about??

[Space-Cowboy]

Wrong, the Vedas were first written down in 1500BC actually. So If the Vedas were written down in 1500BC, after teh Mesopotamias, well then, they proly knew wat alcohol was. It was passed on verbal before that but no one knows how old hinduism really is, but nice try.
Veda History (http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/texts/vedas.htm)

My parents raised me how they were raised, how there parents were raised, and so on for 4,000 + yrs. I don't nessecarly support the caste system, but I do live my live like my ancestors did and honor that path. Shoot the guy who started my blood line acutally wrote a chapter of the vedas. Hence why I'm bhramin.


Who said anything about WRITING?? The ORIGINAL VEDIC HYMNS THAT WERE PASSED DOWN from mouth to mouth by generations of sage-bards is MUCH MUCH older than 1500BC. No one knows the exact date, but anthropological evidence is now pointing it to be much closer to 10 000 years old rather than a mere 4000.

[FatGeezer]

anyone answer my questions please???

And can i have a collective voice answering please?

[DesiByChoice]

I would say preist and hollymen know the most about hinduism, and now a days since the caste system is not practices, you don't have to be born Bhramin to be one, Bhramin are any hindu that basically dedicate there lives to God. And yes, according to the RigVeda we are in the Age of Kali (assuming you mean that also) But it does also tell those who don't want to be corrupted in the age, that you sound not drink , eat meat, have illict sex, etc.
I am going to refer the point of illicit sex. In the "olden" days, marriages happened very early and hence human beings could have sex a lot earlier. The human body requires sexual satisfaction to function (I hope everyone knows this).

Nowadays, due to societal and cultural changes, people have careers, marry later and enjoy life. Do you expect them to be virgins till they get married?

The average marriage age for indian couples have gone from 19F/23M to 24F/28M.

So... you want us to live half our lives without having sex?
Just a discussion, I am "V" myself, but thats my choice.

Comments.

[adren@line]

But don't you understand, the HUGE problems that come about as a result of his thinking. Different interpretations yes, misinterpretations no. Lemme go into detail:

1) 'We are all One' --This fundamental belief of Vedism, specifically cannot happen when "higher castes" place themselves as more important than that of 'lower castes'.

2) Making the 'lower castes' feel inferior in this way makes them more likely to convert, and deny themselves of what I believe is one of the richest philosophies mankind has discovered.

no it isnt a huge problem.
It would be a huge problem if we were running around killing each other and blowing shit up, but we are not. Hindu A doesnt killed Hindu B because of differing beliefs.

Dont get me wrong, I dont believe in the caste system either. I think its idiotic and people shouldnt believe in it, but if they do, oh well. Its not like he lives in India. His belief in his "Brahminess" doesnt really matter. Wont get him a job. Wont pay his bills. Wont make him any friends.

That is , ofcourse, he takes on the title of "Brahmin" in the hierarchical and biggoted sense and not in the religious sense which relates to a specific way of life.

So no, it is not a problem.

[txbengali]

Who said anything about WRITING?? The ORIGINAL VEDIC HYMNS THAT WERE PASSED DOWN from mouth to mouth by generations of sage-bards is MUCH MUCH older than 1500BC. No one knows the exact date, but anthropological evidence is now pointing it to be much closer to 10 000 years old rather than a mere 4000.

Of course it was passed on verbally by Bhramins, and the last time I looked their isn't evidenc of being 10yrs old....you show me something that proves your point, and I'll give it too ya, until then.

Age of Hindusim 6,000 to 8,000 yrs old (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/hi/hinduism.html#Historical%20origins%20and%20aspects %20of%20society)

[Space-Cowboy]

Misinterperations? You think the vedas are twice as old as they are, you are misinformed. I'm not the one trying to cause issues, everyone he stated there beliefs that contradict me, and I said thats cool, you "get heated" lol....people like you are the problem.

And as I said, anyone can be Bhramin, I don't belive In the caste system, but I was born Bhramin, and I choose to live that path.

Now get off your broken high horse, and stay out of the thread if you can't stay on topic. Or did you forget to read what this thread is about??


Oh, I'm not on any high horse, you on the otherhand might look into that as you seem so adamant about "staying the moral course" and arguing the "ignorance of those who eat meat and drink". I PERSONALLY don't drink, that's a personal choice, made by me, not by my faith. And you ARE Brahmin because you were born into it, you didn't 'CHOOSE' this path :rolleyes: If you're so adamant, stop calling yourself a Brahmin, just call yourself a Vedic, .... a Vedic who chooses to refrain from meat eating AS A PERSONAL CHOICE, not a faith based one.

[txbengali]

I am going to refer the point of illicit sex. In the "olden" days, marriages happened very early and hence human beings could have sex a lot earlier. The human body requires sexual satisfaction to function (I hope everyone knows this).

Nowadays, due to societal and cultural changes, people have careers, marry later and enjoy life. Do you expect them to be virgins till they get married?

The average marriage age for indian couples have gone from 19F/23M to 24F/28M.

So... you want us to live half our lives without having sex?
Just a discussion, I am "V" myself, but thats my choice.

Comments.

LOL thats why your suppose to jack off. I was a virgin by choice for 23 years, then came my punjabi ex gf....girl would not take no for an answer, finally did it to shut her up, didn't enjoy it cause I new since I was not married to her it was not right, now we are on a break...told her if she wants to get back together she needs to respect the fact I don't want to have sex. :(

[txbengali]

Oh, I'm not on any high horse, you on the otherhand might look into that as you seem so adamant about "staying the moral course" and arguing the "ignorance of those who eat meat and drink". I PERSONALLY don't drink, that's a personal choice, made by me, not by my faith. And you ARE Brahmin because you were born into it, you didn't 'CHOOSE' this path :rolleyes: If you're so adamant, stop calling yourself a Brahmin, just call yourself a Vedic, .... a Vedic who chooses to refrain from meat eating AS A PERSONAL CHOICE, not a faith based one.

One ignorance of those who eat meat and drink is a direct quote from Krishna To Arjona. Who am I to say Krishna is Wrong? Last time I check he was an incarnation of God on Earth. I was born into this is true, I choose my own path since my beliefs are more orthodox than my parents, and I choose to stay on my path...People who are born hindu who convert to another religion choose another path, hindus that stay hindu choose the hindu path.

Just because your born hindu, that doesn't make you hindu, You have to choose to be hindu, and I KNOW thats in the scriptures.

[sharthap]

I find it hard to grasp (maybe because of the way my methodical mind works) how a religion can be left open ended (before you jump on my back IM NOT critisicing, merely trying to learn and understand) to decide for oneself whats right and whats wrong.

If a religion is left to each individual to interpret doesnt that mean that everyone has their own different religion that envelopes theyre life and doings? Doesnt that mean then everyone is beleiving in different things slightly or majorly? Then how can that be classed as the same religion when the beleifs are so different.

If:
person A beleives that the colour YELLOW is BLACK
person B beleives that the colour WHITE is BLACK
person C beleives that the colour BLACK is BLACK

how can we say all three are correct when we know from our point of reference (a colour chart lets say) what black is?
So how can a religion be different for different people from its point of reference (which would be its fundamental beleifs)


so can someone conclusively tell me some fundamental boundaries of hinduism that EVERYONE agrees on?

In christianity/judaism/islam there are firmly set boundaries that if crossed are classified as 'sin':
Thou shalt not steal.... etc etc

So what CONCLUSIVELY would be a 'sin' in a hindu point of view?

simple answers to all your questions:

first you gotta understand that there are really 2 religions:

the original one is the Vedic religion (more of a philosophy, less of a religion actually) which is also known as Santan Dharma.

this original Vedic religion/philosophy is what has been written in the Vedas. The Vedas were written by ascetic gurus that lived around the Indus Valley around the begining of the Indo-Aryan Civilization, around 9000-11,000 years back. In order to answer the questions of life and beyond, these gurus would detach themselves from everything in the world, go off into the jungles, and survive on bare minimums. The idea was to disconnect their soul from the physical world as much as possible. They would then meditate for extreme periods of time, upto months. During intense rounds of meditation, they were able to reach higher states of consciousness where they would rise above the physical, and come into contact with their inner self (soul) and with God (also known as Nirvana by many).

Upon reviving later, they would write down their experiences...and these writing collectively formed the Vedas.

It is understandable that putting such near-divine experiences into mere words is not possible without scaling down the experiences by a large degree. Indeed every person has to make theat spiritual connection, that spiritual journey for his/herself. But they did the best they could in documenting their wisdom. These gurus were highly educated, and used Sanskrit as their language of scripture.

Now, the majority of the population in those days were peasant, warriors, or merchants...hence mostly uneducated. Even those with some elementry education did not posses the intellectual capacity to comprehend the very far-out stuff that the gurus wrote, that too in an esoteric language like Sanskrit.

SO, to get the message of the Vedas accross to the common man, Vedic scholars used stories and myths (often based on real life events) to relay the Vedic teachings to the masses. This eveolved mythology is what came to become Hinduism.

To address your question about the Vedic/Hindu account of sin, it goes as follows:

The issue of morality is brought into play by the law of karma (reap as you sow). There is no hell. The soul is re-incarnated over and over again to learn and grow through the experiences of life. In order for good to prevail, evil must exist. So the soul experiences everything; the good, the bad, the sweet, the sour, the bitter. One single lifetime is simply not enough to cover the entire spectrum of life's experiences. Once the soul has developed completely and learned all that there is to learn, THEN it returns to God (which would be the equivalent of heaven).

This philosophy is strongly characterized by destiny. It is the destiny of good men to be good, and of evil men to be evil. Every soul must go through all shades, good or bad, with the greater aim of spiritual development, and this occurs over many lifetimes.

98% of the 'Hindu' population today can be said to follow Hinduism, which is a largely mythological evolution of the Vedic philosophy, which embodies the same core ideals and values. Only a mere 1 or 2 % would actually classify themselves as Sanatan Dharmic/ Vedic, or are even aware of it.

Hope this clarifies some elementry doubts about Hinduism.

[sharthap]

Firstly Don't EVER tell me how to refer to MYSELF. Caste system has be banned if you think its dead, your out of your mind. If it was dead, parents wouldn't care about there children marrying there own caste, or if you go to any one of those Shaadi sites, they wouldn't ask for your caste. Sorry Dude, no matter what you want to believe the caste system is intertwined with the Hindu culture, deal with it. I am Bhramin, and will refer to myself as such. And you're entitled to your interpitation of hindusim, and I'm entitled to mine. YOUR belief isn't the one and only way, and neither is mine, get over yourself. And yes, Most hindus do eat meat, read more carefully I was reffering to most scriptures say you shouldn't eat meat, sorry If that wasn't clear.

Now Again, This post is about Alcohol, not trying to prove that if Hindus don't believe your hindu ideas that it "makes your blood boil" :rolleyes:

And anceint Vedic scripture does make reference to anything that would alter your normal behavior. Which alcohol does, and alcohol is pretty dang ancient too, so don't say there wasn't alcohol in vedic times, thats just plain incorrect.

Chill dude. I think the difference between you two is that you are a devout, orthodox Hindu; while Space_Cowboy can accurately be classified as a liberal adherent of Vedic Philosophy, removed from the classical 'Hindu' doctrine.

Anyway, there is no reason whatsoever for any discord. You're both of the same religious breed, and you both follow the same blend of ideals and values (at least the part matters anyway).

Although i AM compelled to say...the caste system was a later evolution within Hinduism. It was a system far ahead of its time hence why it failed...nevertheless there is NOTHING in the Vedas that warrants the caste system. It is hence unfortunate that the caste system has permeated itself so deeply into contemporary Hinduism. But at least us educated folk should view it as what it is, and what it isn't.

[DesiByChoice]

LOL thats why your suppose to jack off. I was a virgin by choice for 23 years, then came my punjabi ex gf....girl would not take no for an answer, finally did it to shut her up, didn't enjoy it cause I new since I was not married to her it was not right, now we are on a break...told her if she wants to get back together she needs to respect the fact I don't want to have sex. :(
LOL, gotta love them hoes LOL, just kidding!

[DesiByChoice]

LOL, gotta love them hoes LOL, just kidding!
To add, its not healthy to not have sex at the age of 25, FYI!.
Males reach peak at 18-20, hmmm, interesting :P

[Space-Cowboy]

Of course it was passed on verbally by Bhramins, and the last time I looked their isn't evidenc of being 10yrs old....you show me something that proves your point, and I'll give it too ya, until then.

Age of Hindusim 6,000 to 8,000 yrs old (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/hi/hinduism.html#Historical%20origins%20and%20aspects %20of%20society)

Aight gimme a sec. I'll find the link. But as a preamble, I'll say that the evidence is based on anthropological migration routes of Vedic-following-tribes and there have been evidence of these similar tribes dating back to 8000 B.C [10,000 yrs ago] that moved up in through to Siberia when diverging from the Persian plains. The exact location of the origins of the hymns are still not known to date.

[txbengali]

Chill dude. I think the difference between you two is that you are a devout, orthodox Hindu; while Space_Cowboy can accurately be classified as a liberal adherent of Vedic Philosophy, removed from the classical 'Hindu' doctrine.

Anyway, there is no reason whatsoever for any discord. You're both of the same religious breed, and you both follow the same blend of ideals and values (at least the part matters anyway).

Although i AM compelled to say...the caste system was a later evolution within Hinduism. It was a system far ahead of its time hence why it failed...nevertheless there is NOTHING in the Vedas that warrants the caste system. It is hence unfortunate that the caste system has permeated itself so deeply into contemporary Hinduism. But at least us educated folk should view it as what it is, and what it isn't.

Oh no no, don't misunderstand me I respect every path and form of hinduism, I am orthodox, thats my belief, and not something I would push onto anyone. The only thing I pushed on this post is at least read the vedas and the gita, nothing more.

The Caste system was credit in the Vedic times, its just not a birth thing, just a division of labor. It was never meant to herdity based.

[txbengali]

Aight gimme a sec. I'll find the link. But as a preamble, I'll say that the evidence is based on anthropological migration routes of Vedic-following-tribes and there have been evidence of these similar tribes dating back to 8000 B.C [10,000 yrs ago] that moved up in through to Siberia when diverging from the Persian plains. The exact location of the origins of the hymns are still not known to date.

As far as the migrantion partian of the Vediac (AKA Aryan) People, well thats a can of worms. The two predominate theories are 1. Vedic people are from europe/persian and invaded Indian. 2. The Aryans were always in india and migrated outward. Not much evidence on either. Liguisticaly their is evidence for Aryans never invading indian and they were always their, but watever....I believe there was no invasion.

The problem with dating or ancient history is that through history people came in a fukd stuff up, moguls especially distoried many many ancient sites that would have help us understand our history. And don't even get me started on the Taj Mahal, some of you might now, their is alot of evidence that it was a Shiv Temple that Shajahan Converted into a mosolem. Not this is flame bait lol
Taj Mahal Contervery (http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html)

[sharthap]

The Caste system was credit in the Vedic times, its just not a birth thing, just a division of labor. It was never meant to herdity based.

yes, you are right about that.

the problem with the caste system though, is that it has a great potential for misuse, and was indeed misused to a great extent. It has also mutated and become far different from what the Vedas had prescribed. And finally, we now know through experience that the Caste System is not only a failed concept (failed because it was far, far ahead of its time), but also a potentially dangerous one.

Anyway, the Caste System can still be tolerated today as long as their is tolerance, and as long as it it does not give rise to discrimination. The affirmitive action laws in India (SC/ST quotas etc.) were introduced with aim of removing precisely this kind of discrimination. ( I think they ended up creating more trouble than good, but that's irrelevant)

Anyway, if you'd like to understand the mechanics behind a society based on a Caste system as prescribed by the Vedas, and to understand why the Caste System was a far out, advanced concept, i suggest the book 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley. It takes a lot of its idea from Vedic philosophy. A very good read.

[Space-Cowboy]

As far as the migrantion partian of the Vediac (AKA Aryan) People, well thats a can of worms. The two predominate theories are 1. Vedic people are from europe/persian and invaded Indian. 2. The Aryans were always in india and migrated outward. Not much evidence on either. Liguisticaly their is evidence for Aryans never invading indian and they were always their, but watever....I believe there was no invasion.

The problem with dating or ancient history is that through history people came in a fukd stuff up, moguls especially distoried many many ancient sites that would have help us understand our history. And don't even get me started on the Taj Mahal, some of you might now, their is alot of evidence that it was a Shiv Temple that Shajahan Converted into a mosolem. Not this is flame bait lol
Taj Mahal Contervery (http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html)

Woah? When did I say 'invasion'? I do believe in a 'migration'. There had to have been a migration, as homosapiens originated from Africa. From what I can tell, the theorists that cater to what I described earlier in this thread believe that this time frame [c. 8000 B.C., the Proto-Vedic period] is when most of the DEVELOPMENTS of Vedic knowledge originated. From this early Vedism certain manifested doctrines were formed. There are many who believe that Wicca has Vedic roots, as does Zorashtrianism. This Early Vedism spread and got 'consolidated' into different cultures, of those, it seems that Sanatan Dharma and a little bit of Wicca was able to retain much of that early Vedic wisdom. Again, I'll find the source for you, the problem is hard finding it online because most of this is from a series of research papers and excavation documents my anthropology friend is using to write his thesis.

And I hate to harp on this but NO, the you cannot credit the Caste system to the Vedas.... the Gita, and the other books which DO contain evidence of the caste system can source the Vedas, but it doesn't directly come from the Vedas. Here is what it actually is:

You said that this is about the division of labour. It's much more than that. Remember that I told you, the Vedas are guides to the cosmos first and foremost, not guides towards lifestyle. So, the idea that the Vedas are trying to show [again, I'm talking about the Arcane hymns, much of them buried in the vaults of the oldest temples in India], is that things, beings, matter, energy, everything around us, while seemingly [to us] different, are all part of the same Thing. That Thing is the Oversoul [Brahman/God/Bhagvan].

THAT is what the Vedas were trying to say. So, in the context of an applicable system, given that the benefits of specialization and division of labour were fully realized by then, the Vedas, in this context would state that: A doctor, and a soldier, have their different roles in the material plane, but in the great scheme of things, they are all playing a 'role' in the greater reality that exists, much like your lungs, heart, kidneys, bones and muscles all having different functions but working together as a whole to make the body work [crude analogy I know, but I think I got the point across].

My 'beef' is that corrupt Brahmins [maybe not your specific ancestory], but Brahmins none the less, twisted this into lies and misinterpretations for their own designs. Take yourself out of the modern context and think about this:

Put yourself into the shoes of a Sudra living in the 1300s. Each and everyday, you are told time and time again, these twisted lies, and MADE TO BELIEVE that Brahmins were superior to you, BETTER than you, you were LESS than them.

And then one day an invading army of a completely different religion, worshipping a completely different saviour, prophet if you will, comes into your land and gives you an out:

** Come into our religion and you need not worry about stature, you are all equal under the eyes of God **



What do you think the majority of the Sudras chose?



And THAT is my beef. Because of the inherently selfish twist that Brahmins put on scriptures that should have meant something totally different, many of our people lost faith and converted out of what I believe [and I've said this time and time again], the deepest philosophies that mankind has ever created. Vedism.

[bad_cheque]

I think there is mention of soma rasa in the vedas. If my memory serves right there are verses in praise of it and against it. I don't remember well now. My knowledge about Hinduism is quite rusty. I am interested in helping people in the here and now. Those people who don't have the time to think about religious things as they are busy surviving.

Follow this principle and you will be alright:
"Do whatever floats your boat"

[txbengali]

Woah? When did I say 'invasion'? I do believe in a 'migration'. There had to have been a migration, as homosapiens originated from Africa. From what I can tell, the theorists that cater to what I described earlier in this thread believe that this time frame [c. 8000 B.C., the Proto-Vedic period] is when most of the DEVELOPMENTS of Vedic knowledge originated. From this early Vedism certain manifested doctrines were formed. There are many who believe that Wicca has Vedic roots, as does Zorashtrianism. This Early Vedism spread and got 'consolidated' into different cultures, of those, it seems that Sanatan Dharma and a little bit of Wicca was able to retain much of that early Vedic wisdom. Again, I'll find the source for you, the problem is hard finding it online because most of this is from a series of research papers and excavation documents my anthropology friend is using to write his thesis.

And I hate to harp on this but NO, the you cannot credit the Caste system to the Vedas.... the Gita, and the other books which DO contain evidence of the caste system can source the Vedas, but it doesn't directly come from the Vedas. Here is what it actually is:

You said that this is about the division of labour. It's much more than that. Remember that I told you, the Vedas are guides to the cosmos first and foremost, not guides towards lifestyle. So, the idea that the Vedas are trying to show [again, I'm talking about the Arcane hymns, much of them buried in the vaults of the oldest temples in India], is that things, beings, matter, energy, everything around us, while seemingly [to us] different, are all part of the same Thing. That Thing is the Oversoul [Brahman/God/Bhagvan].

THAT is what the Vedas were trying to say. So, in the context of an applicable system, given that the benefits of specialization and division of labour were fully realized by then, the Vedas, in this context would state that: A doctor, and a soldier, have their different roles in the material plane, but in the great scheme of things, they are all playing a 'role' in the greater reality that exists, much like your lungs, heart, kidneys, bones and muscles all having different functions but working together as a whole to make the body work [crude analogy I know, but I think I got the point across].

My 'beef' is that corrupt Brahmins [maybe not your specific ancestory], but Brahmins none the less, twisted this into lies and misinterpretations for their own designs. Take yourself out of the modern context and think about this:

Put yourself into the shoes of a Sudra living in the 1300s. Each and everyday, you are told time and time again, these twisted lies, and MADE TO BELIEVE that Brahmins were superior to you, BETTER than you, you were LESS than them.

And then one day an invading army of a completely different religion, worshipping a completely different saviour, prophet if you will, comes into your land and gives you an out:

** Come into our religion and you need not worry about stature, you are all equal under the eyes of God **



What do you think the majority of the Sudras chose?



And THAT is my beef. Because of the inherently selfish twist that Brahmins put on scriptures that should have meant something totally different, many of our people lost faith and converted out of what I believe [and I've said this time and time again], the deepest philosophies that mankind has ever created. Vedism.

Gita Ch. 18, V.41:
"Of Brahmanas, Kshtriyas and Vaishyas, as also the
Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to
the qualities born of their own nature."

Gita Ch.18, v.42:
"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."

Gita,Ch. 18, v.43
:"Prowess, splendour, firmness, dexterity and also not
fleeing from battle, generosity and lordliness are the duties
of Kshatriyas, born of their own nature."

Gita,Ch. 18, v. 44:
"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 Sudras (servant class), born of their own nature."

Gita, Ch.18, v.45:
"Each man devoted to his own duty, attains perfection."

Gita, Ch. 18, v.47.:
"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."

Gita, Ch. 18, v.48.:
"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."
____________________________________

From the Bhagava Gita and this is Krishna Speaking to Arjuna. Born of their Nature, the Vedics created the caste system but not a birth right, just of their nature or natural disposition.

Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13: Krishna says:
"The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;"

If you wanna say Krishna is wrong, thats on you. Or you can just say the evil Brahman changed the Gita for there own goals.

Sutra's are not twice born like the other 3 caste, mainly they were untouchables and casteless people like non hindus. And again, I'm just saying what in the Gita. Krishna says your karma determines your caste, so if you did something bad, and you get it back two fold in your next life, you'll be a sutra as punishment. Reincarnation is were you are punished for sinning in your past life, if your a bad bharmin and do bad stuff, thats ironic karma, being a sutra in your next life.

Maybe I miss spoke about the Caste System being in the Vedas, looking it up, but it MOST CERTIANLY is in the Gita as I just demonstrated. And as much as you want to argue it, it doesn't change the fact the it is vedic.

And I wasn't saying u said anything about invasion (aryan) just that was one of the aryan/vedic threories which has as much merit as migration or if aryans were always in the indus river valley.

[aiyun]

so would you call txbengali an 'extreme' or 'fundamentalist' hindu?
no he just thinks that everything they have on the internet is true.

what generation are these kids of the 90s?
gen xy?

[txbengali]

no he just thinks that everything they have on the internet is true.

what generation are these kids of the 90s?
gen xy?

Lol....your the one who mentions Vivekanadra as not having a Guru, and everyone who knows the fact is that he started the Ram Krishna Math and Ram Krishan Mission in honor of his teacher. I was born in 1980 so I don't think I would be consider a kid of the 90s. All I've stated is backed up by scriputure and history....and you give examples that are dead wrong. Who thinks what the read on the internet is true? I think you...were the heck did you come up with the Idea that Vivekandra had no Guru?? Thats just plan ignorate and insulting to the holly Ram Krishna.

At least for the sake of your reverance for Vivekandra, LEARN ABOUT HIM...and forget your misinformation that Vivekandra wasn't a decilpe of a guru. Until then, you have no creditablity, if any clicked my links they already read the he was the studen of Ram Krishna and you say he had no teacher....you just look like a fool now.

[bad_cheque]

Gita Ch. 18, V.41:
"Of Brahmanas, Kshtriyas and Vaishyas, as also the
Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to
the qualities born of their own nature."

Gita Ch.18, v.42:
"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."

Gita,Ch. 18, v.43
:"Prowess, splendour, firmness, dexterity and also not
fleeing from battle, generosity and lordliness are the duties
of Kshatriyas, born of their own nature."

Gita,Ch. 18, v. 44:
"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 Sudras (servant class), born of their own nature."

Gita, Ch.18, v.45:
"Each man devoted to his own duty, attains perfection."

Gita, Ch. 18, v.47.:
"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."

Gita, Ch. 18, v.48.:
"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."
____________________________________

From the Bhagava Gita and this is Krishna Speaking to Arjuna. Born of their Nature, the Vedics created the caste system but not a birth right, just of their nature or natural disposition.

Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13: Krishna says:
"The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;"

If you wanna say Krishna is wrong, thats on you. Or you can just say the evil Brahman changed the Gita for there own goals.

Sutra's are not twice born like the other 3 caste, mainly they were untouchables and casteless people like non hindus. And again, I'm just saying what in the Gita. Krishna says your karma determines your caste, so if you did something bad, and you get it back two fold in your next life, you'll be a sutra as punishment. Reincarnation is were you are punished for sinning in your past life, if your a bad bharmin and do bad stuff, thats ironic karma, being a sutra in your next life.

Maybe I miss spoke about the Caste System being in the Vedas, looking it up, but it MOST CERTIANLY is in the Gita as I just demonstrated. And as much as you want to argue it, it doesn't change the fact the it is vedic.

And I wasn't saying u said anything about invasion (aryan) just that was one of the aryan/vedic threories which has as much merit as migration or if aryans were always in the indus river valley.

The Gita came after the Vedas. I don't think it is considered part of Vedic Hinduism. It is more of Brahminical Hinduism.

[txbengali]

The Gita came after the Vedas. I don't think it is considered part of Vedic Hinduism. It is more of Brahminical Hinduism.

Well for that we'd need a time line of when vedic hinduism ended. the Mahhabhrat (were the Gita comes from) was written down in 540 BC but prolly happend welll before that. And the last time I checked the Mahbhrat is about the Aryan Vedics. Of course if some can site reference to the contray I welcome it. But if Mahbhrat is about the Vedics, the so is the Gita

[aiyun]

Lol....your the one who mentions Vivekanadra as not having a Guru, and everyone who knows the fact is that he started the Ram Krishna Math and Ram Krishan Mission in honor of his teacher. I was born in 1980 so I don't think I would be consider a kid of the 90s. All I've stated is backed up by scriputure and history....and you give examples that are dead wrong. Who thinks what the read on the internet is true? I think you...were the heck did you come up with the Idea that Vivekandra had no Guru?? Thats just plan ignorate and insulting to the holly Ram Krishna.

At least for the sake of your reverance for Vivekandra, LEARN ABOUT HIM

what i meant when i said swami vivekananda had no guru, i mean immediate guru. sri ram krishna was born in 1830's something. and swami vivekananda found the ram krishna mission in 1987. just like lord buddha, no immediate guru.

sri ram krishna was inspired by lord krishna himself, that does not mean lord krishna was his guru. similarly as far as i understand swami vivekananda was a follower of that school of thought as proposed by shri ram krishna, but shri ram krishna was not his guru. guru's have deciples.

its like lord jesus had deciples, but he is not a guru for the present day pope or pastor etc.

and please spell ignorant correctly, if you wish to call someone that.

besides being ignorant is OKay, stupidity is far worse

[txbengali]

what i meant when i said swami vivekananda had no guru, i mean immediate guru. sri ram krishna was born in 1830's something. and swami vivekananda found the ram krishna mission in 1987. just like lord buddha, no immediate guru.

sri ram krishna was inspired by lord krishna himself, that does not mean lord krishna was his guru. similarly as far as i understand swami vivekananda was a follower of that school of thought as proposed by shri ram krishna, but shri ram krishna was not his guru. guru's have deciples.

its like lord jesus had deciples, but he is not a guru for the present day pope or pastor etc.

and please spell ignorant correctly, if you wish to call someone that.

besides being ignorant is OKay, stupidity is far worse

Your kidding right??

Sri Ramakrishna 1836-1886
Vivekananda 1863 - 1902

Vivekananda died in 1902...how did he find the RamKrishan Mission in the 80s??

For the Love of God Click This Bio On Vivekananda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda)


Ramkrishna Mission found May 1, 1897 by SRI VIVEKANANDA 10 years after the death of his teacher who was alive at the same time as Vivekanada 1863 - 1887 both of them were alive

Bio On Ramkrishna Mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna_Mission )


I'm the stupid one? Are you kidding??

Maybe we're not talking about the Same Swami Vivekananda?

Maybe you think the internet is lying about Vivekananda's death and birth? Look at the picture of him....does that look like it was taken in the 70s or 80s???

[bad_cheque]

Well for that we'd need a time line of when vedic hinduism ended. the Mahhabhrat (were the Gita comes from) was written down in 540 BC but prolly happend welll before that. And the last time I checked the Mahbhrat is about the Aryan Vedics. Of course if some can site reference to the contray I welcome it. But if Mahbhrat is about the Vedics, the so is the Gita

Some believe that the Vedas were transmitted orally for up to 8000 years (see Fisher). Most Western and a few Indian commentators see this as an exaggeration and date the earliest part of the Veda, the Rig-Veda Samhita, to around 1200 BC–1500 BC. However, it is acknowledged by most that the Vedas did indeed have a long oral tradition and were passed from teacher to disciple for at least many centuries before first being written down.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

It is not exactly clear when the Bhagavad Gita was written. Astronomical evidence cited in the Mahabharata itself put the date at 3137 BCE, ancient Indian historical texts (Puranas) suggest a date of about 1924 BCE and the bulk of modern scholars hold widely differing dates that occur after 1000 BCE. [1]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

[aiyun]

Your kidding right??

Sri Ramakrishna 1836-1886
Vivekananda 1863 - 1902

Vivekananda died in 1902...how did he find the RamKrishan Mission in the 80s??

For the Love of God Click This Bio On Vivekananda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda)


Ramkrishna Mission found May 1, 1897 by SRI VIVEKANANDA 10 years after the death of his teacher who was alive at the same time as Vivekanada 1863 - 1887 both of them were alive

Bio On Ramkrishna Mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna_Mission )


I'm the stupid one? Are you kidding??

Maybe we're not talking about the Same Swami Vivekananda?

Maybe you think the internet is lying about Vivekananda's death and birth? Look at the picture of him....does that look like it was taken in the 70s or 80s???
wow this is embarassing, i obviously have the names mixed upw ith someone else.
sorry.

swami vivekananda is the person who met with rockefeller then, not the other guy who is down south?

omg

ohh well but still: u do not need to have a guru to attain nirvana, i would still stick to that.

[txbengali]

wow this is embarassing, i obviously have the names mixed upw ith someone else.
sorry.

swami vivekananda is the person who met with rockefeller then, not the other guy who is down south?

omg

ohh well but still: u do not need to have a guru to attain nirvana, i would still stick to that.

The only person I can think of is Swami Prabhupada who founded the Hare Krishna's he's circa 1970'ish....dunno if thats who you were trying to site. He also had a spritual master Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur.

And I will correct something that I said before, I said Buddha had no Guru, I consulted my brother, and he said He actually had many so I did a lil research he did seek guidance from many gurus but in the end was not satisfied with what he learned from them.

Your point is you don't need a Guru, totally respect that, but we are not all Buddha. Analogy : A genius might be able to figure out calculaus on their own but a football player might need teachers and lots of touters to figure out the same thing. Thats my point, If you were born spirtually enlightned, sure you don't need a guru for direction, but the rest of us are just mere mortals tempted by the sins of the world :wavey:

[txbengali]

Some believe that the Vedas were transmitted orally for up to 8000 years (see Fisher). Most Western and a few Indian commentators see this as an exaggeration and date the earliest part of the Veda, the Rig-Veda Samhita, to around 1200 BC–1500 BC. However, it is acknowledged by most that the Vedas did indeed have a long oral tradition and were passed from teacher to disciple for at least many centuries before first being written down.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

It is not exactly clear when the Bhagavad Gita was written. Astronomical evidence cited in the Mahabharata itself put the date at 3137 BCE, ancient Indian historical texts (Puranas) suggest a date of about 1924 BCE and the bulk of modern scholars hold widely differing dates that occur after 1000 BCE. [1]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

When I think of 8,000 years of oral tradition, I think of the telephone game, anyone remember that? but according to my brother the way it was told and the gramar and stuff you'd know imideatly if it was wrong, he was comparing the composition to a computer language or sumthing, i was zoning out when he was explaining it :sarb:

Both Scripts are VERY VERY VERY Old thats fine.

Rig Veda :

The Rig Veda contains one of the most famous sections in ancient Indian literature in which the first man created, Purusa, is sacrificed in order to give rise to the four varnas.

“The Brahmin was his mouth, his two arms were made the Rajanya [Kshatriya, king and warrior], his two thighs [loins] the Vaishya, from
his feet the Sudra [servile class] was born.” - Quote from the Rig Veda


the Rig Veda is the frist veda so this is DEFFIANTLY proof positive that the caste system comes from the vedics.

No the corruption of it. The Sudra are the feet, without feet you can't move. In Vedic Castse Stystem without the Sudra, society would crumble, every caste is important and needed for the society to prosper. What happend was in the time of classical hindusim, there was a power struggle between Bhramins and the Rajanya (Sutria) and that jack everything up for the Sudra. But it was a mutal power struggle between the bhramins and sutria, so you can't blame one without blaming the other for making the Sudra a jacked up caste.

But lets be real, not all Bhramins nor Sutria are bad and all were corrupt. Ram Krishna and Vivakandra were Bhramins and Budda and Asoka and Arjuna were Sutria

[Space-Cowboy]

Gita Ch. 18, V.41:
"Of Brahmanas, Kshtriyas and Vaishyas, as also the
Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to
the qualities born of their own nature."

Gita Ch.18, v.42:
"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."

Gita,Ch. 18, v.43
:"Prowess, splendour, firmness, dexterity and also not
fleeing from battle, generosity and lordliness are the duties
of Kshatriyas, born of their own nature."

Gita,Ch. 18, v. 44:
"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 Sudras (servant class), born of their own nature."

Gita, Ch.18, v.45:
"Each man devoted to his own duty, attains perfection."

Gita, Ch. 18, v.47.:
"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."

Gita, Ch. 18, v.48.:
"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."
____________________________________

From the Bhagava Gita and this is Krishna Speaking to Arjuna. Born of their Nature, the Vedics created the caste system but not a birth right, just of their nature or natural disposition.

Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13: Krishna says:
"The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;"

If you wanna say Krishna is wrong, thats on you. Or you can just say the evil Brahman changed the Gita for there own goals.

Sutra's are not twice born like the other 3 caste, mainly they were untouchables and casteless people like non hindus. And again, I'm just saying what in the Gita. Krishna says your karma determines your caste, so if you did something bad, and you get it back two fold in your next life, you'll be a sutra as punishment. Reincarnation is were you are punished for sinning in your past life, if your a bad bharmin and do bad stuff, thats ironic karma, being a sutra in your next life.

Maybe I miss spoke about the Caste System being in the Vedas, looking it up, but it MOST CERTIANLY is in the Gita as I just demonstrated. And as much as you want to argue it, it doesn't change the fact the it is vedic.

And I wasn't saying u said anything about invasion (aryan) just that was one of the aryan/vedic threories which has as much merit as migration or if aryans were always in the indus river valley.

The Gita is not Vedic, it came WELL after the Vedic period. It was written by scholars who **called themselves Brahmins** who tried to make the Vedas understandable to the common public.... with the added twist that this Gita would hold them [the Brahmins] in high regard. The fact that one caste is somehow 'better' :rolleyes: than another and will receive 'two fold' compared to the previous caste shows just how WRONG this is, and how TWISTED the Brahmins made Vedic philosophy out to be [again going by what is said in the Gita, from your post]. Like I said, I don't believe Krishna to be anything more than an enlightened human.... certainly not a god. And I could be wrong about that too, maybe Krishna, if he existed, was not even an enlightened man, ........ just.... a man. Hell, I can't say for sure if Krishna even existed or not.

As far as the mystique behind the presence of the Aryans are concerned, they couldn't have ALWAYS been there, neither could the Dravidians, ...or any other race on any other continent for that matter. At *some point* they HAD to have migrated OUT of Africa, correct?

[Space-Cowboy]

When I think of 8,000 years of oral tradition, I think of the telephone game, anyone remember that? but according to my brother the way it was told and the gramar and stuff you'd know imideatly if it was wrong, he was comparing the composition to a computer language or sumthing, i was zoning out when he was explaining it :sarb:

Both Scripts are VERY VERY VERY Old thats fine.

Rig Veda :

The Rig Veda contains one of the most famous sections in ancient Indian literature in which the first man created, Purusa, is sacrificed in order to give rise to the four varnas.

“The Brahmin was his mouth, his two arms were made the Rajanya [Kshatriya, king and warrior], his two thighs [loins] the Vaishya, from
his feet the Sudra [servile class] was born.” - Quote from the Rig Veda


the Rig Veda is the frist veda so this is DEFFIANTLY proof positive that the caste system comes from the vedics.

No the corruption of it. The Sudra are the feet, without feet you can't move. In Vedic Castse Stystem without the Sudra, society would crumble, every caste is important and needed for the society to prosper. What happend was in the time of classical hindusim, there was a power struggle between Bhramins and the Rajanya (Sutria) and that jack everything up for the Sudra. But it was a mutal power struggle between the bhramins and sutria, so you can't blame one without blaming the other for making the Sudra a jacked up caste.

But lets be real, not all Bhramins nor Sutria are bad and all were corrupt. Ram Krishna and Vivakandra were Bhramins and Budda and Asoka and Arjuna were Sutria

First of all, Rig Veda was NOT the oldest of the Vedas.
Secondly 'Sudra' are not the 'feet'
Thirdly Buddha and Asoka saw the corruption that lay with Brahminism and this Sanatan Heirarchy that SHOULDN'T exist, so they LEFT.
Why do I say Rig Veda was not the oldest of the Vedas, pure and simple, it was written AT LEAST 6000+ yrs after the Proto-Vedic period. And I'm willing to be those verses probably didn't even exist in the original Rig Vedic texts.... or at least not in the manner which you describe. And EVEN taking that quote into a PROPER context, it makes NO MENTION of a caste system, rather, it makes an anthropological observation on the division of labour.

[txbengali]

The Gita is not Vedic, it came WELL after the Vedic period. It was written by scholars who **called themselves Brahmins** who tried to make the Vedas understandable to the common public.... with the added twist that this Gita would hold them [the Brahmins] in high regard. The fact that one caste is somehow 'better' :rolleyes: than another and will receive 'two fold' compared to the previous caste shows just how WRONG this is, and how TWISTED the Brahmins made Vedic philosophy out to be [again going by what is said in the Gita, from your post]. Like I said, I don't believe Krishna to be anything more than an enlightened human.... certainly not a god. And I could be wrong about that too, maybe Krishna, if he existed, was not even an enlightened man, ........ just.... a man. Hell, I can't say for sure if Krishna even existed or not.

As far as the mystique behind the presence of the Aryans are concerned, they couldn't have ALWAYS been there, neither could the Dravidians, ...or any other race on any other continent for that matter. At *some point* they HAD to have migrated OUT of Africa, correct?

At *some point* India was connected to Africa. And thats assuming you buy into the "Out of Africa" Theory. Which as of right now is a theory. I don't disbelieve it nor do believe it, obviously man had to start somewere, why not Africa. I know the DNA evendience that supposedly proves it, but until its an accepted fact by the scientific community I'll hold of on saying anything about Out of Africa..

[aiyun]

its ok. he doesnt wanna show hindus as people that may have killed...
not true, it is because shivaji was one fo the factors fo the downfall of moughal empire, but he did not cause it. coz aurangzeb the last prominent mughal king killed shivaji's son.
its not that hindus don't kill, but in a generalistic view, we have always been invaded more so than we have conquested, which is ofcourse because our land is so good, we were pretty self sufficient back in the day.

[aiyun]

So just like rastaferans may get away with smoking marijuana in a court of law because it is part of their religion would i get off with murder because i consider it to be my religion?
dude where is the logic in the question
u are equating smoking marijuana - which harms u and no one else, to killing someone else - which harms other and their family members. how can u make two such varied statements, and ask a unified question? they are only unified under an individual's code of ethics. and no religion and ethics is not the same.

[txbengali]

First of all, Rig Veda was NOT the oldest of the Vedas.
Secondly 'Sudra' are not the 'feet'
Thirdly Buddha and Asoka saw the corruption that lay with Brahminism and this Sanatan Heirarchy that SHOULDN'T exist, so they LEFT.
Why do I say Rig Veda was not the oldest of the Vedas, pure and simple, it was written AT LEAST 6000+ yrs after the Proto-Vedic period. And I'm willing to be those verses probably didn't even exist in the original Rig Vedic texts.... or at least not in the manner which you describe. And EVEN taking that quote into a PROPER context, it makes NO MENTION of a caste system, rather, it makes an anthropological observation on the division of labour.

Oh man, you do have some issues. Bhramins were created by the Vedas two people, me and one of the other posts in this thread concered with me. The whole caste system was devised and created by the Vedic people. The verses werent in the orginally RigVeda? Whooo, now your going on some conspercy theory that the evil Bhramins changed the religious text for their own purposes.....well they didn't have to guess who composed the texts..thats right, Bhramins, my great x800+ grandfather composed part of the vedas like I've pointed out earlier....as with the rest of the Vedas, Bhramins composed them....so their is no need to change the orignals since the Bhramins made the originals...You really do have some messed up views..but I do understand why you can't except the fact that the Vedics created the the Varnas (ie Castes). It goes agaisnt your views, which some people can't except. $hit, your answer to all the proof that the Vedics created the Varnas, the Bhramins edit them to make the Caste System.

TRUTH. These are the facts about the ancient Varanas (Castes). When I say facts, that means it can not be disproven nor reputed, even if you try too. The Vedic people create the 4 fold caste system comprisied of Bhramins, Warriors, Merchants and Servents. Unlike the modern caste system, your caste was not determined by birth. Vedic castes were determinted by each person characterics, ie if the person was passionate, he would be a warrior. In one of my above post, Krishna explains what characterists determine the persons caste. In the time you speak of the Bhramins were not choosen by birth, they were again choosen by there characteristis, that being said unless the Vedic people did a bad job in determining their peoples characterists the Bhramin caste would have no interest in power, their only interest would have been to attain enlightment and to share their knowledge with the other castes. It was only in the "age of classical hinduism) that the power struggle between the bhramins and the warrior/ruling caste would began. And this is HISTORiCAL FACT. For those reading this thread and want to know the truth about the caste system.

And now your sawing the Gita/Mahbharat was created by the Bhramins to solidify their power and that they might have made up Krishna?
I'm not even touching that....that's borderline if not outright blasfimy, and I'm sure alot of Hindus who read what you wrote will prolly be more pissed of than you were when u started this post.

I'm done talking about the caste sytem, facts are facts, you are wrong, even if i took you back to the past with me to prove it your own eyes, you'd prolly say "Wow, Bhramins were corrupting the system a long time ago".

You have you opinion were Krishna might be made up by the Bhramins to give them power, and were the Vedics did not create the caste system, and were the Bhramins corrupted Hinduism. Thats fine. Believe what you want, everyone is entitiled to there opinion, but I'm sure I'm not the only sick of hearing how the evil Bhramins change the holly scriptures to suit their needs, consider they wrote them....and of course thats a direct attack on me since my anesctor composed parts of the vedas.

[chicago85thst]

how bout religion and alcohol dont mix

[aiyun]

Oh man, you do have some issues. Bhramins were created by the Vedas two people, me and one of the other posts in this thread concered with me. The whole caste system was devised and created by the Vedic people. The verses werent in the orginally RigVeda? Whooo, now your going on some conspercy theory that the evil Bhramins changed the religious text for their own purposes.....well they didn't have to guess who composed the texts..thats right, Bhramins, my great x800+ grandfather composed part of the vedas like I've pointed out earlier....as with the rest of the Vedas, Bhramins composed them....so their is no need to change the orignals since the Bhramins made the originals.....................

lolololol with that kind of a response, u actually want us to believe that brahmins didn't cause the caste system. the caste system was devised as a method of division of labour. the heriditary continuation of that custom was caused by the brahmins. and if u disagree just read the shit you wrote, u have a bloody ethnocentiricism problem.

[txbengali]

how bout religion and alcohol dont mix

Funny how a simple thread were I was just asking about peoples thoughts on Hinduism + Drinking = Bad turns into a theological debate. Guess I shouldn't have used holly scripture to reference my feeling that you shouldn't drink if your hindu :sarb:

[txbengali]

lolololol with that kind of a response, u actually want us to believe that brahmins didn't cause the caste system. the caste system was devised as a method of division of labour. the heriditary continuation of that custom was caused by the brahmins. and if u disagree just read the shit you wrote, u have a bloody ethnocentiricism problem.

The heriditary apect was created my all the higher castes not just the bhramins, if your a ruler (warrior caste) don't you think you want your childern to rule as well? The Caste System (no heridical) was created by the Vedic People that was my point. But to blame everything on the Bhramins thats kinda messed up. Everyone now and then want their childern to follow in their footsteps, maybe not everyone but alot of people. But yes, I would say the Bhramins were not soley responsably for the herdical caste system like you clam. You're simpley trying to find a scapegoat and Bhramins make a good traget since they bascially got all the special treatment in India for along time, which I will be the first to admit was wrong.

So no I don't have a "bloody ethnocentericism problem" I just speak common sense. If Merchants have a succesful bussines, they want their childern to run it when they die. Kings or tribal rulers also want their kids to be rulers, duh. Only one caste (ie servent) would not want their childern to follow in the footsteeps. Your idea that bhramins made the heriditary caste sytem just contradicts common sense. Bottom "bloody" line.

[txbengali]

Moderator Person, If people don't start discussing Alcohol in Hinduism, Lock this thread up. This thread has been highjacked by clowns who can't read the topic of the thread "Hinduism and Alcohol Don't Mix"

[aiyun]

The heriditary apect was created my all the higher castes not just the bhramins, if your a ruler (warrior caste) don't you think you want your childern to rule as well? The Caste System (no heridical) was created by the Vedic People that was my point. But to blame everything on the Bhramins thats kinda messed up. Everyone now and then want their childern to follow in their footsteps, maybe not everyone but alot of people. But yes, I would say the Bhramins were not soley responsably for the herdical caste system like you clam. You're simpley trying to find a scapegoat and Bhramins make a good traget since they bascially got all the special treatment in India for along time, which I will be the first to admit was wrong.

So no I don't have a "bloody ethnocentericism problem" I just speak common sense. If Merchants have a succesful bussines, they want their childern to run it when they die. Kings or tribal rulers also want their kids to be rulers, duh. Only one caste (ie servent) would not want their childern to follow in the footsteeps. Your idea that bhramins made the heriditary caste sytem just contradicts common sense. Bottom "bloody" line.

merchants and middle class didn't come into the picture years later.

and over time even the kings gave into the brahmins.

now just so that u know, as a brahmin, a man of god, a preacher of what is right and wrong, should view everyone correctly. that is the task that was devised to them, to take care of the common man who couldn't think about such wise things by themselves... if u wish... and so u agree then brahmins became selfish and wanted only their children to prosper, not a quality you would want in a guru, now is there? so ur argument is flawed to begin with, and quit talking like my grandmother does about how great we brahmins are, i mean for fucks sake get over ur bloody ego's, brahmins are mere mortals, and u'll were corrupt, and u did fuck thigns over for the common man, and hinduism as a religion that was practised in that era was flawed.

they were brahmins that slaughtered the head of little 9 yr old girls as sacrifice to the lord, and last case of this happening was 1998.

see the difference, don't look at it.

[aiyun]

Moderator Person, If people don't start discussing Alcohol in Hinduism, Lock this thread up. This thread has been highjacked by clowns who can't read the topic of the thread "Hinduism and Alcohol Don't Mix"
ur new here, no? people get into discussions here, the topic is like an advertisement, not a rulebook to be followed.

[txbengali]

merchants and middle class didn't come into the picture years later.

and over time even the kings gave into the brahmins.

now just so that u know, as a brahmin, a man of god, a preacher of what is right and wrong, should view everyone correctly. that is the task that was devised to them, to take care of the common man who couldn't think about such wise things by themselves... if u wish... and so u agree then brahmins became selfish and wanted only their children to prosper, not a quality you would want in a guru, now is there? so ur argument is flawed to begin with, and quit talking like my grandmother does about how great we brahmins are, i mean for fucks sake get over ur bloody ego's, brahmins are mere mortals, and u'll were corrupt, and u did fuck thigns over for the common man, and hinduism as a religion that was practised in that era was flawed.

they were brahmins that slaughtered the head of little 9 yr old girls as sacrifice to the lord, and last case of this happening was 1998.

see the difference, don't look at it.

Dude, you are full of yourself. Again you are trying to say that all bhramins were corrupt, thats compelte garbage. Funny people like Vivekanda, Ram Krishna, Prabhupada, Sri Chandrasekharendra, Anandamayi Ma, Gopi Krishna, just to name a few, were born Bhramin and did so much for hinduism and to give people like you a greater understanding of what it is to be Hindu. By even suggesting "ya'll were corupt" , and since they were bhramin (since they're dead now) your saying they were corrupt as well.

Maybe you should listen to your elders (ie your grandmother). To believe that some how all Bhramins, even the majority didn't follow their traditions of seeking enlightnment and teaching it to others proves one thing, you are ignorant. Nothing I can say, no evidence I can show you will ever change your ignorant notion on Bhramins, so there is no point.

The thing I have learned by coming on this board, I should just stick to posting things on "GENERAL" forums, cause with people so as yourself that can't see beyond their preconcived notions even in the face of fact or common sense, is like trying to teach calculus to an Infant. If I wanted a serious religion dailog, not some wacko saying "No your wrong, your kind (Bhramins) destoryed our religion", I will next time go to Hindunet.org.

Yes I'm a Newbie, did you not read my frist post "Hi, this is my frist post" , Wow, you are a bright cookie, let me tell you. Hijacking a thread with talk that has nothing to do with the topic is called flaming or things of that nature on the internet. If I wanted to hear your views on hinduism, I would have started a thread called "Hindus with misconceptions please post here" but no, I wanted to know peoples views on religions view on alcohol, the fact that you and other completely miss the point just shows not only do you have bizzare misconceptions about the history and practices of hindusim, that you also can't R-E-A-D.

And for those who don't know... the only people that do human scarifices in the modern era are Kali-motas (sp?), they are what we call nut jobs that think if you kill 100 people you get to see Kali, and drink blood out of skulls and weird stuff like that. And that sect of Hinduism is banned in India, but they do exist there.

And my last point, even if you don't follow the scriptures, without them hindusim would not be here. But guess what, the VEDAS were reveled to Bhramins, for 8,000 yrs all relgious scripture was passed on orally from Bhramin father to Bhramin son. So if you think all Bhramins are corrupt, then the foundation of hinduism (the striptures) have to be corrupt, so stop whinning about Bhramins and become Christain or something.
Thank You, Come Agian.

[Space-Cowboy]

Oh man, you do have some issues. Bhramins were created by the Vedas two people, me and one of the other posts in this thread concered with me. The whole caste system was devised and created by the Vedic people. The verses werent in the orginally RigVeda? Whooo, now your going on some conspercy theory that the evil Bhramins changed the religious text for their own purposes.....well they didn't have to guess who composed the texts..thats right, Bhramins, my great x800+ grandfather composed part of the vedas like I've pointed out earlier....as with the rest of the Vedas, Bhramins composed them....so their is no need to change the orignals since the Bhramins made the originals...You really do have some messed up views..but I do understand why you can't except the fact that the Vedics created the the Varnas (ie Castes). It goes agaisnt your views, which some people can't except. $hit, your answer to all the proof that the Vedics created the Varnas, the Bhramins edit them to make the Caste System.

TRUTH. These are the facts about the ancient Varanas (Castes). When I say facts, that means it can not be disproven nor reputed, even if you try too. The Vedic people create the 4 fold caste system comprisied of Bhramins, Warriors, Merchants and Servents. Unlike the modern caste system, your caste was not determined by birth. Vedic castes were determinted by each person characterics, ie if the person was passionate, he would be a warrior. In one of my above post, Krishna explains what characterists determine the persons caste. In the time you speak of the Bhramins were not choosen by birth, they were again choosen by there characteristis, that being said unless the Vedic people did a bad job in determining their peoples characterists the Bhramin caste would have no interest in power, their only interest would have been to attain enlightment and to share their knowledge with the other castes. It was only in the "age of classical hinduism) that the power struggle between the bhramins and the warrior/ruling caste would began. And this is HISTORiCAL FACT. For those reading this thread and want to know the truth about the caste system.

And now your sawing the Gita/Mahbharat was created by the Bhramins to solidify their power and that they might have made up Krishna?
I'm not even touching that....that's borderline if not outright blasfimy, and I'm sure alot of Hindus who read what you wrote will prolly be more pissed of than you were when u started this post.

I'm done talking about the caste sytem, facts are facts, you are wrong, even if i took you back to the past with me to prove it your own eyes, you'd prolly say "Wow, Bhramins were corrupting the system a long time ago".

You have you opinion were Krishna might be made up by the Bhramins to give them power, and were the Vedics did not create the caste system, and were the Bhramins corrupted Hinduism. Thats fine. Believe what you want, everyone is entitiled to there opinion, but I'm sure I'm not the only sick of hearing how the evil Bhramins change the holly scriptures to suit their needs, consider they wrote them....and of course thats a direct attack on me since my anesctor composed parts of the vedas.


Yeah it's pretty clear to me that this guy's in denial. NO, the original Vedas DID NOT HAVE BRAMHINS, and the fact that you keep talking about this only shows how much of a prejudiced Brahmin you really are. You've got so much propaganda in here I don't even know where to begin.

For the record, Brahmins NEVER made the original Vedas. Most Brahmin scholars were too uptight about keeping their social stature the didn't even have the TIME to comprehend the originals. And yeah, I don't rule out the possibility of Brahmins creating Krishna [just like they created the rest of the pantheon] to solidify their power.

The real heroes are those such as Buddha and Asoka, and Gupta, and the myriad of unknown sages, and rishies, and holy men that traverse well off the beaten path up the himalayan mountains with nothing but FOCUS alone, to achieve Nirvana. THOSE are the many MANY unknown scholars who deserve REAL credit. Not Krishna, or Ram, or Arjuna.

[FatGeezer]

is my voice drowned i these heavyweight debates???

[Geezer]

I really dont know where this idea comes from that Brahmins made the supreme vedas, that's a terrible misconception. Similar to claiming that sati is part of the supreme vedas(Brahmin school of thought). Nowhere in the rveda or other vedas does it mention sati. Brahmins can probably best be explained or defined has aryan purohits, foreigners who came to India from Persia and maybe europe without any religion. Now there are passages in the rig veda that talk abouy arya or aarya but before their arrival, there were no sudras or panchamas. Find me a historic reference of their existence before aryan influences. Brahmins were a self-made superiority by aryans who favoured and cherished colour prejudices. Theologists and Historians have proved this through years of research.

[sharthap]

is my voice drowned i these heavyweight debates???

http://forums.ratedesi.com/showpost.php?p=3364143&postcount=45

[jassika]

alchohol doesnt mix well with a lot of things

[txbengali]

I really dont know where this idea comes from that Brahmins made the supreme vedas, that's a terrible misconception. Similar to claiming that sati is part of the supreme vedas(Brahmin school of thought). Nowhere in the rveda or other vedas does it mention sati. Brahmins can probably best be explained or defined has aryan purohits, foreigners who came to India from Persia and maybe europe without any religion. Now there are passages in the rig veda that talk abouy arya or aarya but before their arrival, there were no sudras or panchamas. Find me a historic reference of their existence before aryan influences. Brahmins were a self-made superiority by aryans who favoured and cherished colour prejudices. Theologists and Historians have proved this through years of research.

Oh jeez, okay I tried to stay out of this now pointless theard. But when people start throwing out Theories and passing them off as fact, it just annoys me, and for those who are open minded might actually by what this person is saying as fact. So let me clarify, k?

Aryans and Vedics are one in the same, I would site refernces but their are why to many, my advice, google it. Aryans were the Vedics, Vedics most defanitly had a religion, I'm sure you know what it is. In fact the Hittis, an Aryan group in the ancient Middle East worship VEDIC GODS.

This seems more to be a part of the Aryan Invasion theory, were Aryan either migrated or invaded Indian, massacred the Dravidains, and used the caste system (Varnas) to subject the dark folks. Guess what Kids? This is only a Theory, just like Everything dealing with Vedic/Aryans people, why is it just a theory? Well this is all taking place before recorded history, no historical record, very little arcehologic evidence.

Here's another theroy which has more Linguistic Evidence. Many scholars have noted many similarities with Anicent Greek and Sanskrit. The scholars were white, so they first assumed that sanskirt, since it is much older than Greek must have orginated in Europe and then traveled to India. Thus the rise of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory. Problem with that, no were in Europe have they found traces of the Vedic Relgion which goes hand and hand with Aryans. Vedic traces have been found all the way into the middle east, ie the Hittis. Now the other Theroys which holds just as much validity as the previous theory is that Aryans were always in India, and lived side by side with the Dravidains, and some Aryans tribes migrated out to Persia and Europe, which of course White people don't want to believe, but just google "aryan invasion theory" there are many books and papers to refute the invasion.

Now Vedic evidence to refute the clam that Bhramins were a later addition. Look a few post back clowns. In the Rigveda, it clearly defienes the Varnas, and Bhramins. And if you think like Space Cowboy, you are what is called a Conspericy Theorist, the Bhramins changed the Vedas and added the Varnas. But as is fact and you can agruee till you are blue in the face, for 8,000 years the Bramins were the keepers of the oral(lol, sorry i'll continue) traditon of the Vedas, no one else, so they would have no reason to change it. The Vedas WERE writen by bhramins, this is not a misconception its a religious fact, deal with it. Now what I will say is the writers were NOT BORN BHRAMIN. Back then Bhramins or any other Varna WERE NOT heriditary.

That being said this post is not to prove anything to you, believe what you want to believe thats your right, and space cowboys and anyone elses. And I am open minded but I don't just take what under 25 yr old say for fact, you need to prove your points with evidence and if its valid I'll tottaly believe you. Which is why I use the Veda and the Gita for my reference, to back up my beliefs....so be Intellegent folks, if you believe something and what to argue it, please have proof, and BTY Space Cowboy, saying the that proof in the Vedas must have been added by the Bhramins is not proof, You are A Bhramin Consperasite, and remind me of G.W.Bush...

You
-Believes Evil Bhramins dind't exist during the Vedic times, because the prue and holly Vedics would never come up with such a thing as the Caste system.
-I used the Vedas to prove my point.
-You believe now that the Vedas were also corrupted by the Bhramins, nothing else can explain that the Varnas and Bhramins are in the texts.

Bush
-Believed that Sadam had Weapons of mass destruction
-UN couldn't find anything to say he did.
-Bush thinks Sadam was fooling everyone invades, and finds nothing, still hasn't mentioned he was wrong that I'm aware.

Similarities amazing no?

[txbengali]

And some extra Knowlege on the Gitas. It is created to who?
The Sage Sri Veda Vyasa, and guess what, he wasn't born Bhramin. Just a lil tid bit also, in the GITA, Lord Krishna is of dark complexion, not Blue.

[Geezer]

You're quite condescending about this, it's unnecessary. While its general knowledge that sages(Vyasa Dwapayanah even) wrote the vedas(that is the religious fact, textbook knowledge, look it up, google it, ask your swami etc), you claim that brahmins wrote the vedas. What do you think happened, sages just decided to become brahmins and then wrote down the divine message? Or could it have happened after they realised what a powerful tool they have, that they wrote secondary scriptures and brought cultural and human influences to the scriptures.

In any case, this thread is absolutely useless and will be moved to junk.

[Space-Cowboy]

Oh jeez, okay I tried to stay out of this now pointless theard. But when people start throwing out Theories and passing them off as fact, it just annoys me, and for those who are open minded might actually by what this person is saying as fact. So let me clarify, k?

Aryans and Vedics are one in the same, I would site refernces but their are why to many, my advice, google it. Aryans were the Vedics, Vedics most defanitly had a religion, I'm sure you know what it is. In fact the Hittis, an Aryan group in the ancient Middle East worship VEDIC GODS.

This seems more to be a part of the Aryan Invasion theory, were Aryan either migrated or invaded Indian, massacred the Dravidains, and used the caste system (Varnas) to subject the dark folks. Guess what Kids? This is only a Theory, just like Everything dealing with Vedic/Aryans people, why is it just a theory? Well this is all taking place before recorded history, no historical record, very little arcehologic evidence.

Here's another theroy which has more Linguistic Evidence. Many scholars have noted many similarities with Anicent Greek and Sanskrit. The scholars were white, so they first assumed that sanskirt, since it is much older than Greek must have orginated in Europe and then traveled to India. Thus the rise of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory. Problem with that, no were in Europe have they found traces of the Vedic Relgion which goes hand and hand with Aryans. Vedic traces have been found all the way into the middle east, ie the Hittis. Now the other Theroys which holds just as much validity as the previous theory is that Aryans were always in India, and lived side by side with the Dravidains, and some Aryans tribes migrated out to Persia and Europe, which of course White people don't want to believe, but just google "aryan invasion theory" there are many books and papers to refute the invasion.

Now Vedic evidence to refute the clam that Bhramins were a later addition. Look a few post back clowns. In the Rigveda, it clearly defienes the Varnas, and Bhramins. And if you think like Space Cowboy, you are what is called a Conspericy Theorist, the Bhramins changed the Vedas and added the Varnas. But as is fact and you can agruee till you are blue in the face, for 8,000 years the Bramins were the keepers of the oral(lol, sorry i'll continue) traditon of the Vedas, no one else, so they would have no reason to change it. The Vedas WERE writen by bhramins, this is not a misconception its a religious fact, deal with it. Now what I will say is the writers were NOT BORN BHRAMIN. Back then Bhramins or any other Varna WERE NOT heriditary.

That being said this post is not to prove anything to you, believe what you want to believe thats your right, and space cowboys and anyone elses. And I am open minded but I don't just take what under 25 yr old say for fact, you need to prove your points with evidence and if its valid I'll tottaly believe you. Which is why I use the Veda and the Gita for my reference, to back up my beliefs....so be Intellegent folks, if you believe something and what to argue it, please have proof, and BTY Space Cowboy, saying the that proof in the Vedas must have been added by the Bhramins is not proof, You are A Bhramin Consperasite, and remind me of G.W.Bush...

You
-Believes Evil Bhramins dind't exist during the Vedic times, because the prue and holly Vedics would never come up with such a thing as the Caste system.
-I used the Vedas to prove my point.
-You believe now that the Vedas were also corrupted by the Bhramins, nothing else can explain that the Varnas and Bhramins are in the texts.


You didn't prove any of this, you just provided absolute bullshit!