Page 1 of 1

a question

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:24 pm
by Nosuperstition
In the old forum as well as in the attributetoHinduism site,a mention was made that the Sanskrit words 'Charaiveti Charaiveti'(move on and on) and 'Krunvanto Visvam Aryan'(make the whole world Aryan) mentioned in some Hindu texts or so call for making the whole world Hindu.Can I know the exact context of these words and whether they are written in the primary texts of Vedas or the secondary texts of the Itihaasaas,18 Puraanaas,Brahmanas,Smritis or somewhere else?

Re: a question

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:19 pm
by manfred
I have never heard this before... in fact, as far as I know, you have to be born a Hindu, and you cannot "convert" to it as such. But again, there are quite a few varieties.... In Bali there are some VERY FEW Muslim girls who have married a Hindu man, usually against fierce resistance from her family, and they live LIKE a Hindu (interestingly, though, they will generally still avoid pork, it is in the blood I think....) but they are rejected by their families and not seen as a "proper" Hindu either, unless she has some Hindu relatives. They have a very difficult life, being entirely dependent on just the whims of one person, her husband.

I am not aware of any Hindu conversions in Western countries, of effort to that effect, are you? (I am not counting the "Hari Krishna" bunch). Sikhs, on the other hand do have a very low level gentle "recruitment drive".

Re: a question

PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:56 am
by Nosuperstition
manfred wrote:I have never heard this before... in fact, as far as I know, you have to be born a Hindu, and you cannot "convert" to it as such. But again, there are quite a few varieties.... In Bali there are some VERY FEW Muslim girls who have married a Hindu man, usually against fierce resistance from her family, and they live LIKE a Hindu (interestingly, though, they will generally still avoid pork, it is in the blood I think....) but they are rejected by their families and not seen as a "proper" Hindu either, unless she has some Hindu relatives. They have a very difficult life, being entirely dependent on just the whims of one person, her husband.

I am not aware of any Hindu conversions in Western countries, of effort to that effect, are you? (I am not counting the "Hari Krishna" bunch). Sikhs, on the other hand do have a very low level gentle "recruitment drive".


Perhaps the long history of Hindus being just one of the subjects being subject to the rule by Buddhist and Jain rulers followed by Muslims and then Christians made Hindus more tolerant of other faiths.So much so that when I mentioned to my mother that Hindus are getting out of Hindu fold into Christianity due to being unable to feed their children,my mother told me that it does not matter as one attains salvation even by means of other faiths.

So it seems that this ingrained idea somehow takes the air out of active conversion drive.Prior to their forcible conversion to Christianity,even polytheist pagans of Europe believed just like Hindus that salvation needn't be attained just by following one way or one religion with others doomed to go to everlasting hell.

Re: a question

PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:01 am
by Nosuperstition
And that brings into question one more saying that just like different rivers reach the same ocean,the same God can be attained by those following different paths or different religions.Now where exactly does this sentence occurs in the voluminous Hindu scriptures and in what context?

Re: a question

PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:09 am
by manfred
my mother told me that it does not matter as one attains salvation even by means of other faiths.




There are quite a few varieties of Hinduism, so to some extent any response is a generalisation.

But your mother expressed a common view found with Hindu people.

When discussing other religions, Hindu leaders often quote a verse from the Rig Veda (1.164.46): "Ekam Sat, viprah bahudha vadanti," meaning "Truth is One, sages describe it variously." It conveys a core Hindu idea: that there can be multiple valid viewpoints about the Supreme. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, philosopher and former president of India, stressed this point: "The Hindu recognizes one Supreme Spirit, though different names are given to it."

This does NOT actually say that "all religions are the same". It merely suggests that all have a similar aim or goal. One destination, many roads. Some roads are better than others.

Hindus have always done what Christianity has only learnt quite recently: first stress the common and the good, before talking about the differences or the bad. Muslims are light years behind that simple approach, and will probably never catch up.

Hindus, in taking this line they have, on the whole have not been rewarded for it, which is a travesty. For a Hindu it is not their beliefs that brings "salvation" but how you put these beliefs into practice.

Re: a question

PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:21 pm
by Nosuperstition
Truth is One, sages describe it variously.


Viprah does not mean sage,but a learned Brahmin or just a simple Brahmin,if what I understand from my Sanskritised Telugu is correct.Of course if one who is to be a sage is to be a Brahmin by birth,then what you said could also take in a sage as one of the described/intended persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viprata

Re: a question

PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:26 pm
by Nosuperstition
For a Hindu it is not their beliefs that brings "salvation" but how you put these beliefs into practice.


If works alone bring salvation and not the grace in a faith,then surely ants that work harder than humans even forgoing family life must attain salvation in greater numbers than human beings.Hindus also believe in grace but might be not to the extent Muslims and Christians of today.Grace is called Uma in Sanskrit and God Shiva is described as Uma Mahesh.

Re: a question

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:22 am
by Nosuperstition
Also krunvanto visvam aryan if translated literally comes down to make to whole world Aryan/noble and not make the whole world Hindu.Then how could this sentence actually exhort Hindus to make the whole world Hindu?After googling a little,I understand that this sentence is from the Rig Veda,a primary text.And charaiveti charaiveti(move on and on) is from the Aitereya Brahmana,a secondary text.

While violent tribal conflicts and conflicts with non-Vedic people in line with the Jewish conflicts with the Canaanites of the promised land in the O.T are indeed described in the Vedas and some other texts,do these two lines have their context in wars or just simple missionary activity is something one needs to know.Perhaps it is due to this described violence in Vedas that Buddha called the Vedas , words of cats and dogs.

Re: a question

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:23 am
by Nosuperstition
But your mother expressed a common view found with Hindu people.

When discussing other religions, Hindu leaders often quote a verse from the Rig Veda (1.164.46): "Ekam Sat, viprah bahudha vadanti," meaning "Truth is One, sages describe it variously." It conveys a core Hindu idea: that there can be multiple valid viewpoints about the Supreme. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, philosopher and former president of India, stressed this point: "The Hindu recognizes one Supreme Spirit, though different names are given to it."

This does NOT actually say that "all religions are the same". It merely suggests that all have a similar aim or goal. One destination, many roads. Some roads are better than others.


Somewhere in the Hindu texts there is said to exist a phrase vasudaiva kutumbakam/vasudhaika kutumbam.It means the whole earth is a family.When if you really consider the people of all of earth a family,of course you would like to see them attain salvation and not roast in hell for eternity.However as our idesigner1 pointed out,when it is the case of preserving the culture of their forefathers,Hindus are not even averse to looting fellow Hindus as had been exemplified by the Maratha kings who used Pindaris to loot both the English and fellow Hindus who were co-operating with them.So that genuine feeling will go missing for this very life itself.

Re: a question

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:21 pm
by Nosuperstition
Muslims on this forum said that British looted India while British on this forum said that Muslims looted North India.The reply of the muslims was that while they looted India,India became still richer under their reign.How was that the case?An answer can be found in a documentary shown in one of the channels,either Discovery/History/National Geographic.In it they said that Shahjahan,the Mughal Emperor of Delhi was able to construct the Taj Mahal and had a golden peacock throne made for himself with the fortunes brought by Europeans.They said that in the New World ,the Europeans wiped out natives in most lands,looted their riches,substituted them with physically tough African slaves for cheap labour and raised huge riches by means of sugar plantations.With that riches they came to India to buy spices which were needed a lot to help the Europeans withstand the cold climate near the poles.

Riches thus amassed by Indians were once again looted by British.So Indians/Maratha kings needn't hold the severe grudge that they were looted a lot by the British.Afterall a portion of it is not of India itself.

Re: a question

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:19 pm
by Nosuperstition
Cassie wrote:You looted Northern India


http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=704&hilit=looted&start=80

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:However, Muslim conquests increased the beauty and riches of Indian tenfolds


http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=704&p=10739&hilit=Taj+Mahal#p10739

Re: a question

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:41 am
by Nosuperstition
I have also read that during the period of Islamic rule in India,profits were made by producing specially designed clothes in India and selling them in fertile and wealthy land of Indonesia.So part of the wealth of temples looted by the British also might have been gotten from Indonesia.Also India prior to Islamic periods,had a profitable trade with both Graeco-Roman world and South East Asia as well as China.So part of the lost treasures might have also been gotten from those places.

Re: a question

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:23 pm
by idesigner1
Nosuperstition wrote:And that brings into question one more saying that just like different rivers reach the same ocean,the same God can be attained by those following different paths or different religions.Now where exactly does this sentence occurs in the voluminous Hindu scriptures and in what context?


The sloke Akasat patitam toyam sagaram Gachhati or water fallen from sky reaches ocean. This phrase is uttered by Rama to Laksmana in Valmiki Ramyan meaning if you worship and make offerings to any god ,it reaches to the one supreme godhead! Same theme can be found in Bhagvad Geeta when Krishna preaches to Arjuna.

Word vipra doesnt strictly mean Brahmin but often understood as sage, seer, twice born, soul.

You can google it, find it and verify.

Re: a question

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:33 pm
by Nosuperstition
Now yeezevee of the old forum was insistent on making Christ one of Hindu pantheon.Even though I used to bow down to both muslim and Christian shrines outside of my house before I came to the net,we never really had any potrait of Christ in our home.Why was he insistent on making Christ one of Hindu pantheon?Is it because only then will they be truly syncretic in having worshipped the saviour and only then the phrase 'every knee that did not bow down will bow down' of the Bible be fulfilled?

Re: a question

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:40 am
by idesigner1
Nosuperstition wrote:Now yeezevee of the old forum was insistent on making Christ one of Hindu pantheon.Even though I used to bow down to both muslim and Christian shrines outside of my house before I came to the net,we never really had any potrait of Christ in our home.Why was he insistent on making Christ one of Hindu pantheon?Is it because only then will they be truly syncretic in having worshipped the saviour and only then the phrase 'every knee that did not bow down will bow down' of the Bible be fulfilled?


Stay focused NS.

We don't know why Yee said that. Whether Hindus accept Christ in their pantheon or not is of no consequence to Christians. Yee must be a Bangladeshi Christian! To some Christian preachers this step of Hindus to become full time Christians is welcome but ultimate goal is the superiority of the one and only Son sacrificed over father and other spirits. Christ is superior to the lord or father- god of Jews sitting up there in sky. Any deviation in belief is blasphemy.Of course lots of contradiction as usual in their belief system Simply insane for man with even rudimentary spirituality. Often might is right! My SOB is greatest!

Re: a question

PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:02 pm
by Nosuperstition
Often might is right!


Yeah that seems to be the most dearly followed motto of societies that eulogise militarism.For example when my linguistic state of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated with clear cut intentions of benefiting Urdu admiring North Indians,the doors of the parliament were shut,physical violence was used,cameras went off and then lo and behold Telangana was formed 'peacefully'.The result being remnant A.P lost more than 42,000 crores of rupees till date and is still counting.