**What are the major Hindu deities?:
**Hinduism believes that there is only one supreme Absolute called “Brahman”. However, it does not advocate the worship of any one particular deity. The gods and goddesses of Hinduism amount to thousands or even millions, all representing the many aspects of Brahman. Therefore, this faith is characterized by the multiplicity of deities. The most fundamental of Hindu deities is the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva - creator, preserver and destroyer respectively. Hindus also worship spirits, trees, animals and even planets.
So muh is your idiotic and nonsense utterances that I really doubt if you are fit enough for a discussion here.
Here is what Mahabharata tells about Manu(The author of Manusmriti).It’s evident that Manusmriti is also older than Mahabharata**.The beauty of the fact is that Manusmriti has originated the concept of caste or Varna,and the same system is conspicuous in Ramayana and Mahabharata**.
Now just enlight all of us what draconian intelligence takes you to contradict my statement. Pls have some info about Hinduism before rolling out your blatant ignorance.Are you thinking that all other members present on this forum are aloof and fools?
Pls see the links below. Mahabharata dates back to 3067 BC while Manusmriti dates back to between 200 BCE and 200 CE i.e. Mahabharata is around 2800-3200 years older than Manusmriti.
Your second question is filled with ignorance and absured reasoning. Manusmriti is older than Ramayana and Mahabharata . You can find the quites from Manusmriti in both Ramayanan and Mahabharata. If you can not have a simple knowledge of this thing, what's the point in bringing in such discussions? Again you can scroll up and see my quotes from Ramayanan and Mahabarata on Manusmriti. I can debate to the effect that since Manusmriti was written before these epics and these epics do tell about the virtues of life ,Manusmriti has played the profound effect on these sacred texts and the due credit should go to Manusmriti rather than Ramayana and Mahabharata( My Mother Goddess forgive me for that!).I would say Brahmins have been given special stature in Mansumsriti ,as the sole genesis for performing religious offerings,and it is mentioned in both Ramayanana and Mahabharata,which came after Manusmriti, and and even after centrueies and milliniums the same status continues today. So another profounding aspect and effect of Manusmriti in Hindu life.
I have shown in my last post that Manusmriti was composed around 3000 years after Mahabharata. Can you give me any dates to prove that Manusmriti is older ?
And while you are at it, can you prove who authored Manusmriti and is Manusmriti still in its original form or has it been edited/changed over the years ?
All the evidence you have provided so far is circumstantial i.e. since Brahmins perform priestly duties and thats what was written in Manusmriti, so we are following Manusmriti. Can you prove that Manusmriti did not just document the already existing practices ?
LOL…G.Buhler ?? Didnt you say a few posts back that you would not accept a westerner’s view about Manusmriti ? In any case 3067 BC is still older than 1500 BC :chai:
Dude, you are just clinging on to straws here. Just let it go.
I have shown in my last post that Manusmriti was composed around 3000 years after Mahabharata. Can you give me any dates to prove that Manusmriti is older ?
And while you are at it, can you prove who authored Manusmriti and is Manusmriti still in its original form or has it been edited/changed over the years ?
All the evidence you have provided so far is circumstantial i.e. since Brahmins perform priestly duties and thats what was written in Manusmriti, so we are following Manusmriti. Can you prove that Manusmriti did not just document the already existing practices ?
I have shown in my last post that Manusmriti was written in B.C 1500 much older than Mahabharata and also given a link in my prveius post a quote from Mahabharata itself about Manu. What's your response to it?
Amazingly bleak reply. I said I will not accept western theory about Indian covilization,when it’s biased and is meant for downplaying my religion.I will accpet it when it’s neutral or authentic.
Mr.Buhler was a Sanskri scholar and he was well verses in Indian civilization.
Mate, you are trying for smoke holes now.
I have shown in my last post that Manusmriti was written in B.C 1500 much older than Mahabharata and also given a link in my prveius post a quote from Mahabharata itself about Manu. What's your response to it?
Sorry Arleitter, When counting dates in B.C , 4000B.C(when Mahabharata was written) is older than 1500 B.C since the dates are counting down to Zero. By contrast 1500 A.D is older than 3000 A.D. I hope I am able to explain this properly.
Ofcourse Mahabharata will mention Manu since he was the first man created :) ,but I doubt that the epic (the original) mentions Manusmriti as a code of law.
Amazingly bleak reply. I said I will not accept western theory about Indian covilization,when it's biased and is meant for downplaying my religion.I will accpet it when it's neutral or authentic.
In other words you will not accept it when it goes against your argument, but accept it when it suits you.
Sorry Arleitter, When counting dates in B.C , 4000B.C(when Mahabharata was written) is older than 1500 B.C since the dates are counting down to Zero. By contrast 1500 A.D is older than 3000 A.D. I hope I am able to explain this properly.
Ofcourse Mahabharata will mention Manu since he was the first man created :) ,but I doubt that the epic (the original) mentions Manusmriti as a code of law.
It's vey simple. Mahabharata mentions abt Manu the king and the varnas. The varnas were proposed and introduced by Manu.How come a text can originate before the origins of it's players? Undoubtedly Manusmrit is older than Mahabharata.
It's vey simple. Mahabharata mentions abt Manu the king and the varnas. The varnas were proposed and introduced by Manu.How come a text can originate before the origins of it's players? Undoubtedly Manusmrit is older than Mahabharata.
There is no conclusive proof that Manusmriti was written by Manu, so your logic is flawed.