What has Hinduism given to the world?

[Yudishthir]

Re: What has Hinduism given to the world?

@chander_kills

Nice try Lahore, but this isnt SATI-Pratha. If you think this is Sati and have links with Hinduism’s epics then i afraid you are in deep illusion. Only scrolling google and reading some epics wont help you understanding Hinduism and its practices.

Nice reply Chander.

the immolation or desire of self immolation is not regarded as a custom in the Mahabharata and as such the word ‘sati’ as a custom never occurs in the epic as compared to other customs such as the Rajasuya yagna. Rather, the instances are viewed as an expression of extreme grief on the loss of a beloved one.

I will add to that. Look in a typical fairytale or a movie, often the girlfriend/boyfriend wants to commit suicide when he/she finds that the other has now died. “Is duniya mein reh kar kya karun ?”

That doesnt mean that the Moral of the Story is that : If your loved one dies, die after him.
It only depicts their great love for their spouse–thats all.

I have pointed out from the Vedas that it is a sin to commit suicide.

But Krishna’s wives loved him so much that they preferred to go with him after death.
Lahori will simply say “Look, look, this means that your scriptures justify sati”.

Anyway, as I pointed out earlier the Vishnu Purana is NOT of the level of Vedas, the epics and Upanishads. They are of a far lower level.

M amazed that you being a muslim have pretty good knowledge of other relegions too,

No. He simply googles and quotes and forms his own interpretations. I dont think he has any knowledge whatsoever.

When I tell them one scripture, they say, it is not authentic. They exclude it from others.

What else can I say about ManuSmriti and the other Smritis ?
Puranas are already in a lower hierarchy than Vedas and Epics.

The Hindu scholar I quoted gave examples from the Puran (which I reproduced), and said that Puranas are without integrity.

When I tell them a verse, they say, my translation is not right, although it has beed taken from pure Hindu websites.

No. Your interpretation is not right.

When I quote something, they say, it is from Dalitstan.org and Sita Agarwal.

Because it is. If its not, then it has been sourced from Sita Agrawal and dalitstan.org.

** This is what another Hindu scholar from about.com has to say about the ManuSmriti :**

“Present-day scholars have criticized the work significantly. The rigidity in the caste system and the contemptible attitude towards women are not acceptable today. The almost divine reverence shown to the Brahmin caste and the despicable attitude towards the ‘Sudras’ (the lowest caste) is objectionable.”

http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051303a.htm

**Lahori, that is an authentic and world-famous Hindu website and an authentic and popular Hindu scholar.

Here is another one from an authentic Hindu website and an authentic popular Hindu scholar **(posting for the second time):

The next two are quoted from an expert in Hinduism Brahmachari
Shrutichaitanya, an expert on Hinduism at About.com. This is what he
had to say to a question:

1] I came across lines in the shiv purana that implied that Shiva
created Vishnu. This is obviously not compatible with shrimad
bhagvatam.

2]** Puranas are nothing but religious novels. It would be vain to
look for integrity among the puranas. There are many things among
puranas which do not tally.** Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are symbols of
the One Supreme God. Stories about their creation vary very much and
it is best to ignore these stories and concentrate on the core
teachings contained in the Upanishads.

Courtesy of Shrutichaitanya–Top Hinduism expert on About.com.
http://experts.about.com/q/Hindus-946/Puranas.htm

Lord Ram ate jhootha fruit from the hands of an old beggarly untouchable. Lord Krishna was a great friend of Sudama, who was very poor although a scholar.

This proves that our Gods treated all men and women alike and there is no place for untouchability in Indian society.