ZZ said:
As you can see, from the above translation of the Bhagavt Gita from a genuine hindu source dharma has been translated as occupation. :
sva-dharmah – one’s own occupation
Again here is the link if you wish to check it’s authenticity:
http://www.iskcon.org/sastra/f_bg.html
Now excuse me, but I have to go attend my weekly
‘10 Easy Steps to Learn how Not Make Fool of Yourself’
If you like I can send you a subscription form?
Xtreme ISKCON stands for International Movement for Krishana Consciousness, a bhakti movement with more following abroad than in India.
99.99% of Hindus neuther know about it nor follow it.
So your Quadianis are more representative of Islam than ISKCON is of Hinduism.
Hey Mr. Xtreme
I have to say, I am somewhat impressed that you would corroborate your translations with a source, in this case ISKCON. I have no particular problems with their translation, other than the minor issue of their translations being possibly more devotional than I would say is in the original Gita. Similarly, there are other sites I would recommend you have gone to first, but no matter.
However, you make the mistake of assuming that one is "born" into his svadharma, through the distorted caste system that we so abhor. This is incorrect. If you would read the purport intrepretations that ISKCON provides you will see that it is a man's nature, as described by his three gunas, that determine his duties. These three gunas are sattva (goodness), rajas (passion,rage), and tamas (ignorance,torpor). Each of us has a different mix of these - it is part of our human nature, and depending on the mix, our duties are then prescribed by the 4 varnas. As our human nature changes as we mature, so too can we move between varnas.
In this case, Arjuna is a born and bred fighter, one of the best of his time. However, he wished to stop fighting on this particular day - against his own nature. Krishna says that to not fight the good fight, in this case, would have damaged Arjuna, for his own rajasic qualities would eventually have demanded him to go into battle. Had Arjuna's nature been more sattvic, then his prescribed duties would be different. If you wish to argue that our own human nature does not make each of us suited to certain tasks over other tasks, then go right ahead. However, to intrepret these verses under the banner of the caste system simply is knee-jerk, and simply smacks of trying to find a non-existant justification for some of problems that exist in India today.
[This message has been edited by astrosfan (edited August 10, 2000).]
Even if you go by ISKCOn's website you are quoting Krishna out of context.
What I could make out is that the context was that Arjuna was not ready to fight and Krishna was telling him to follow his line of duties and not become non-violent like a Brahman because it is his duty to fight the enemy and hence he should follow the path. He was talking to a soldier who does not want to fight seeing so many people dying and human suffering. He also gave his own example in previous stanza, which you chose to ignore in which he says that even he follows a set of rules made for himself and which he will never deviate from. He meant that if you choose to be a soldier, leave the talk of non-violence at home and don't try to switch over occupations. But as usual you learnt your own meaning.
Arjuna did not want to fight because he is fighting his father's brother's sons.
Not that he did not know it before.But seeing them all together on the battlefield is a different thing altogether.
Bhagavadgita in that sense is a pep talk today's army officers give !
Dhir there is no rule that Brahmins should not fight though it is mostly done by Kshatriyas.
In Mahabharata itself Drona the guru of Arjuna is a brahmin.
You must be aware how he was killed !
ZZ said:
** beliefs, practices and customs have kept changing in hinduism. they are still changing. what was done 5000 years ago was not same as what was don 100 years ago and does not resemble what is today.**
Now you must be thinking, what is the point behind me quoting this, well my point is, all these stories you are telling us and explaining what hindu history is, how acurate is all this?As your own brother admitted that hinduism has been changed and still is in the proccess of being changed, the beliefs are not similar to those of the people ages ago, all these stories you telling us may have been changed.....many new things may have been inserted or many statements may have been deleted from your books and legends.
If you ask us(muslims) the same question, we have a very confident answer,and that is QURAN which is unchanged and will remain the way it was sent to Muhammad. We are not very confident about the accuracy of Hadiths because Hadiths are something which people heard,saw Muhammad(s.a.w) do or say and that was passed on to generations and some were written down,but still there is a possiblity that some hadiths are not true.Quran is the main source of guidence for all muslims and then the Hadiths.
Now lets hear from your side.How accurate those legends of yours are?
Masooma
Masooma
How accurate those legends of yours are?
Be rational please!
Legends are not documentaries!
From the explanation given by the hindu friends on the net about hinduism, it appears to be a collection of tales and myths carried over for the past 5000 years. The religion(mythology) is still evolving and will continue to evolve till the end of time is the understanding I am getting.
There are however no universal set of principles or rules to go by and everyone is free to do one's "own thing". Just out of curiosity I would like to ask my hindu friends about the validity of their gods, with special reference to Hanuman and Ganesh etc. I mean are they myths or do you guys actually believe that they existed in the form that they are depicted. Please be candid about your responses. I have asked the same question to other hindu friends of mine and some believe that they existed and some believe that they are purely myths and legends.
Secondly does hinduism really qualify as a religion? If so, then how? This is not meant as an offense to anyone but rather a debate. What I am looking for are the universal beliefs that bind people of the same religion together. I feel that hinduism is perhaps the most elastic religion as her followers believe in almost all religions.
Regards
[quote]
Originally posted by Rational:
*From the explanation given by the hindu friends on the net about hinduism, it appears to be a collection of tales and myths carried over for the past 5000 years. The religion(mythology) is still evolving and will continue to evolve till the end of time is the understanding I am getting.
There are however no universal set of principles or rules to go by and everyone is free to do one's "own thing". Just out of curiosity I would like to ask my hindu friends about the validity of their gods, with special reference to Hanuman and Ganesh etc. I mean are they myths or do you guys actually believe that they existed in the form that they are depicted. Please be candid about your responses. I have asked the same question to other hindu friends of mine and some believe that they existed and some believe that they are purely myths and legends. *
[/quote]
The purpose of myth in religion is an academic debate. Myth itself can help us to understand certain issues by giving us a more practical and concrete example of certain idealogies. Much like Jesus's parables, you take out of the myth what you want, but there are certain things we try to glean from each story. Yes, everyone is "free to do one's own thing" - we believe religion is personal, that everyone has to find his own way, that we all make our mistakes in life (lives), and that we will eventually come around to understanding our true selves. There are many good textbooks that look at myth from an objective, non-partisan standpoint. Whether or not I believe that Hanuman and Ganesha actualy existed in their forms depicted should not affect your own ability to believe it. After all, coming from a Semitic background, a Muslim would be hard-pressed to believe it - I got no issues with that. However, the stories help one focus on God - they give Him a more personal edge, which Hinduism says is a good way to start down the path of Devotion. It is, however, not the only way. As to me personally, I don't particularly believe Hanuman and Ganesha exist as depicted, but I can completely understand how they could help someone else down the path of God-Realization.
[quote]
Originally posted by Rational:
*Secondly does hinduism really qualify as a religion? If so, then how? This is not meant as an offense to anyone but rather a debate. What I am looking for are the universal beliefs that bind people of the same religion together. I feel that hinduism is perhaps the most elastic religion as her followers believe in almost all religions.
Regards *
[/quote]
Good question, and it is still debated to this day. I can claim that a Hindu is a person who believes in the divine inspiration of the Vedas (not necessarily that the Vedas are the be all end all of literature). This is a good general place to start, but not necessarily the best place. When looking to codify Hinduism as a religion, you will be hard-pressed. The school I belong to codifies Hinduism based on the 6 orthodox schools of Hinduism - systems of philosophy meant to expound the Vedas and set about a system of understanding the universe. In this sense, then, the multitude of Gods you see are not really all-powerful omniscient beings in the Greek/Egyptian God sense. Instead, they are manifestations of nature - which in the West is commonly considered a Pagan viewpoint. The Hindu seeks union with God - a condition we call moksha, in a state we call nirvana or samadhi. How to get that union is where all the variety comes in. The process of union is called Yoga, of which there are several types. The West most commonly thinks of Hatha Yoga - the body contortions and exercises that can help prepare the body to focus the mind. But really, this is not philosophical Yoga, which consists of at least 4 general paths - knowledge, devotion, action, and introspection. The devotional (bhakti) path, by worshipping the God of your choice (because it makes sense to you), is what is outwardly seen incorrectly as idol worship - instead, we are trying to make a connection with God by praying, until we realize that the physical world is not as important as God Himself. I am more of a knowledge path person (jnana yoga), and so I seek to realize God through a different means - by study, debate, theology, and meditation. Just as a Muslim trusts Muhammed that he received a message from God, I trust the Hindu swamis that tell me I can realize God through the path of jnana. If I find the path wanting, I can move on. So far, I have yet to find anything that is not profound in my study of the Vedanta, and so I continue.
From the explanation given by the hindu friends on the net about hinduism, it appears to be a collection of tales and myths carried over for the past 5000 years.
Well only those myths which stand the test of time are carried over! It is not all myths.
For example Mahabharata mentions Lord Krishna moved his people from Brindavan to Dwaraka.
Brindavan is still there in U.P. but nobody was sure where Dwaraka is so they thought the story is untrue.
But then about 20 years ago Archeologists discovered a submerged city in Gujarat which they suspect could be Dwaraka.
Astrofan says:
However, you make the mistake of assuming that one is "born" into his svadharma, through the distorted caste system that we so abhor
As far as I know, that is exactly what the caste system is all about, i.e, one is born into his svadharma. This might have been changed in later texts as hinduism sought to reform itself, but quite seriously, do you expect anybody to believe that you aren't born into a caste according to hindu scripture? I have to tell you, that both your texts and the reality are very different.
A lot of the material I have been posting here is from a Dalit website, and as the untouchables of the hindu religion they tell a very different story to the one you are telling. Don't forget, we aren't that far removed from you either, so we know the reality ourselves. Many of us still identify ourselves through caste and we know how it works.
Why have a caste system in the first place if it isn't to separate by birth?
I'll wait for your answer before I take this further.
Why have a caste system in the first place if it isn't to separate by birth?
Unfortunately I am doing something I thought I never will do.I agree with you Xtreme.
Caste was invented by the fair skinned invading Aryans to distnce themselves from the native Dravidians.
However it never worked out in practice.If it worked all Brahmins and Kshatriyas in India must look like Europeans and there should be only 4 castes in India right?
It is true that Casteism is a factor in Hindu religion but not as big a factor as outsiders think.
It is being pepetuated by politicians to preserve their vote banks.
As for Casteism having the sanction of Religious texts we don't care!
We don't treat our religious text like you people treat Koran !
[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
**
As far as I know, that is exactly what the caste system is all about, i.e, one is born into his svadharma. This might have been changed in later texts as hinduism sought to reform itself, but quite seriously, do you expect anybody to believe that you aren't born into a caste according to hindu scripture? I have to tell you, that both your texts and the reality are very different. **
[/quote]
Yes, that is what the caste system is. However, the classic varna system, which you have yet to mention, does not do this. How much of our texts have you read? Have you read the classical interpretations by Adi Shankarcharya, by Ramanuja, by Vivekananda, which we Hindus consider to be so important to the understanding of Hinduism? How much do you know about how even Arjuna, who we mentioned so often in this thread, passed back and forth from Brahmin and Kshatriya?
[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
**
A lot of the material I have been posting here is from a Dalit website, and as the untouchables of the hindu religion they tell a very different story to the one you are telling. Don't forget, we aren't that far removed from you either, so we know the reality ourselves. Many of us still identify ourselves through caste and we know how it works. **
[/quote]
Of course the Dalits have a different viewpoint - they have been mistreated, and that certainly gives them a right to vent. What I haven't seen from you is a reference to the non-Dalits who are also fighting this caste system, from people who are just as learned as your Dalit scholars, that the caste system is not written in our literature, and that texts like Manusmrti really aren't what the world thinks of them, since British occupation has skewed so much of our heritage. Clearly, you have formed your own viewpoint, all I ask is that dig as deep in the other direction to see what you can find. In particular, the Dalits do not reference interpretations from the classic commentators I mentioned above, nor do they cite the work of organizations like the Arya Samaj, the Chinmaya Mission, or the Swami Narayan temples. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - a caste system could be justified based on the quotes you give singly - but taken as a whole, through contemplative study, you will realize that Hinduism does not say this.
You have seen Islam heinously attacked in a similar fashion that you now attack Hinduism - Quranic quotes, taken out of context, intrepreted to mean that Allah and Muhammed recommend inhumane treatment of kafirs, or women, or slaves, or criminals. If you consider this valid criticism, then you also must look deep within Islam to seek its truth. If you consider this invalid criticism, why take it upon yourself to use the same approach in criticizing Hinduism?
[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
**
Why have a caste system in the first place if it isn't to separate by birth?
**
[/quote]
There should be no caste system. You quoted the Gita three times, and not once did it mention that your svadharma (your prescribed duty) was prescribed at birth. This little leap of logic that you make seems easy to make, given the current and past status of castes in India, but the reality is that it is not there.
I maintain that translation of 'dharma' as 'occupation' does not make sense, no matter who does it. Otherwise, what does matri-darma, pitru-dharma etc. mean? Are being mother or father occupations?
** Masooma
How accurate those legends of yours are?
Be rational please!
Legends are not documentaries! **
Andhera dear, this is not an answer.If you don't have an answer just admit it.You guys are not sure about it yourself, have no proof.And here you go, someone just admitted that the monkey face god( is it hanuman?) didn't exist. Hmm what about the kali mata?and the lady sitting on the lion?All these gods and goddesses existed?
Yes i know this is not a documentory, but all these characters (excuse me) look more like scary animated characters than gods or goddesses.
Another very good question was asked by Rational, which i would like to repeat on his behalf
** If all these gods are belived to be existed once, how did they die,and how can gods die?they are not human beings or are they? **
Andhera,if you can't give me valid answers, don't talk non-sense dear or in other common words, don't talk bull shit,thank you and kindly don't interfere if you can't answer something.
Masooma
masooma, why did god have hotline with mohammad. why he did not send any messages to dogs, cats and cockroaches. Is got male chauavanist and he sends messages only to human males. why not a pig messanger and how do u know there has not been one. what is so big deal with human beings who are destroying spoecies after species and entire environment for their consumption. why god backs the selfish people who are read to get in nuclear war and destroy everything alongwith themselves.
Let us have logical dissection of myuths including ones in Quran. Adam and Eve lived in heaven!! where it was. Why god did not want them to eat apple. Why he didnt explain him what he means rather than ordering. Cant god treat umans with respect. in that case why he asks humans to respect him. how did adam and eve come to earth after expelled from heaven. was it a space shuttle. does god still stick to heaven and keep an eye on earth. what is his machinary to do it. whom did adam and eve's children marry. or they had sex with their brothers, sisters, father and mother? how disgusting.
[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited August 10, 2000).]
Astrofan said:
Astrofan, you can claim what you like, but the reality in practice is something else, and the practice is clearly legitamised in the scriptures below. If you want to claim something else that is up to you, but it goes against just about any independent’s understanding.
=============================================
“By his very birth a Brahmin is a deity even for the gods and the only authority for people in this world, for the Veda is the foundation in this matter.” – Manusmrti 11:85.
=============================================
“People here whose behaviour is pleasant** can expect to enter a pleasant womb**, like that of a woman of the Brahmin, the Ksatriya, or the Vaisya caste. But people of foul behaviour can expect to enter the foul womb, like that of a dog, a pig, or an outcaste woman.” – Chandogya Upanisad 5:10:7.
=============================================
“If a man of one birth (Sudra) hurls cruel words at one of the twice-born, his tongue should be cut out, for he was born from the rear-end. If he mentions their name or caste maliciously, a red-hot iron nail ten-fingerslong should be thrust into his mouth. If he is so proud as to instruct priests about their duty, the king should have hot oil poured into his mouth and ears.” – Manusmrti 8:270-272.
=============================================
“If a man of inferior caste tries to sit down on the same seat as a man of superior caste, he should be branded on the hip and banished, or have his buttocks cut off.” – Manusmrti 8:281.
=============================================
“**If someone born in a Ksatriya, Vaisya, or Sudra womb **should be unable to pay his fine, he may absolve himself of the debt by labour; a Brahmin should pay little by little. The king should have women, children, madmen, and the old, the poor, and the ill chastised with a whip, a bamboo cane, a rope, and so forth.” – Manusmrti 9:229-230.
=============================================
“A Brahmin is a great deity whether or not he is learned, just as fire is a great deity whether or not it is brought to the altar. The purifying fire with its brilliant energy is not defiled even in cremation grounds, and when oblations of butter are placed in it at sacrifices it grows even greater. Thus Brahmins should be revered in every way, even if they engage in all kinds of undesirable actions, for this is the supreme deity. If the Ksatriyas become overbearing towards the Brahmins in any way, the Brahmins themselves should subdue them,** for the Ksatriyas were born from the Brahmins**.” – Manusmrti 9:317-320.
=============================================
“A Ksatriya in adversity may also make a living by all of these (means); but he should never be so proud as to assume the livelihood of his betters. If a man of the lowest caste should, through greed, make his living by the innate activities of his superiors, the king should confiscate his wealth and banish him immediately.** One’s own duty, (even) without any good qualities, is better than someone else’s duty well done; for a man who makes his livingby someone else’s duty immediately falls from (his own) caste**.” – Manusmrti 10:95-97.
=============================================
“His (Purusa’s) mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Ksatriya, his thighs the Vaisya,** and from his feet the Sudra was born**.” – Rig Veda 10:90:12.
manusmriti is way later.. in fact post-buddha.. so judging what should be there in geeta from mnusmriti is like judging what should be there in Quran from Satanic verses.
And if there exists such an uniform code of conduct in Hidus, how come matriarchial nairs are hindus, the tribes that marry all brothers to same woman in himalayas are hindus, the ghotul playing rajagond where premarital sex is common and allowed are hindus.
every single state, biradari has its own customs. Has there ever been attempt to change it to what should be uniformly 'hindu' customs ever? That was for a simple reason that such a code of conduct did not exist.
[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited August 10, 2000).]
If all these gods are belived to be existed once, how did they die,and how can gods die?they are not human beings or are they?
Masooma I did not answer this question because I expected better from Rational!
Listen what is the definition of God.
The all powerful one who created the universe right?
So God can do pretty much whatever he pleases.
He can come down to earth and get into a human being as an Avtaar or incarnation can't he?
Then he lives as long as he likes and goes away when he doesn't like it!
Infact one Hindu belief is God is within you and it is entirely your choice - wheather to listen to him or not!
Oh. masooma.. u dont like god.. how about being a naiyayik. Nyaya philosophy does not have god. Hinduism is a supermarket. You can get a philosophy with whichever ingradients u like. in fact u can make ur own philosophy as well. but teake a good look in market, maybe what u want to make already is in store. take care and convert soon.
In fact, if u continue to follow islam and call urself a hindu, none would object that, what is big deal with one more sage mohammad when we had a million of them. no problem..
[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited August 10, 2000).]