Idea of India wasn’t demolished at Ayodhya. That happened in our ‘liberal’ homes

[Andhadhun]

Tell me the reason please.

Learning about your faith from people with the requisite reading is always a pleasure.

Cheers, Doc

Janmana jayate shudrah
Samskarad dvija ucyate
Vedapathi bhaved viprah
Brahma janati brahmanah

Meaning,

One is a Shudra by birth
By observing Sanskara one becomes a Dvija
By studying the Vedas one becomes a Vipra
One who knows Brahman is a Brahmana


In short, anyone who takes Deeksha is twice born. Deeksha itself can be in may forms. From upanayana to simply chanting a mantra specific number of times.


Sanskara / Samskara means consciously joining your action with the divine. One becomes a Hindu by doing so.

There are 48 Samskara mentioned in the scriptures.

Garbha daana, Pumsavana, Seemontonnayana, Jaata Karma,Naama karana, Anna praashana, Choula, Upanayana, Four Veda Vrataas, Snaataka, Saha dharma charini samyoga; Pancha yajnaanushthaana viz. of Deva-Pitru-Manushya-Bhuta- Braahma; Ashtakaa paarvana, Shraaddha, Shravani, Agrahaayani, Chaitri and Ashviyuji being Seven Paaka Yajnas; Seven Haviryajnas viz. Agnyaadheya, Agni hotra, Darsha purna momths, Agraayana, Chaturmaasya, nirudha, pashubandha and Soatramani; and Seven Somas viz. Agnishtoma, Atyagnishtoma, Ukthya, Shodashi,Vaajapeya, Atiraatra and Aapteya.


These are basic Karma (actions) that a person performs and consciously linking them to devine makes one a Hindu. The "how to do that" is where Deeksha comes in or where study of the scripture or a Guru/ Acharya comes in.

 

[Nilgiri]

I'm still around lurking occasionally, but personal issues have forced me to stay away from social media and forums, for now at least.

Glad people still remember me, even though I haven't properly logged in and interacted with anyone in literally months

Hopefully, I'll ll be back soon, once I get everything sorted out.

You are a worthy stabilizing presence in this forum, can't wait to have you back! You have been missed.

But you are quite right, you got to do what you got to do outside of here first for sure.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Not even the Kabul Shahis had been able to unite India, but one thing is for sure that people of this area followed the same religious practices, same rituals more or less.

The Kabul Shahis were the rulers mostly in your region(Pakistan and Afghanistan, west of Indus river but even parts of present day Nothern India). They didn't have much sway over India. You could say they united Pakistan/Afghanistan though maybe just like Durranis.

but history is certain that unification of India/Hindus was started by Muslim rulers, carried on by the british

Again, you need to brush up on history. Maybe you can focus on the history of your region since you don't know a lot about India. I'll tell you in short: Mauryans, Guptas, Mughals did unite a major chunk of the region (including present day Pakistan, parts of Afghanistan) but of course never the whole of India. The Britishers could do it though. So saying that Muslim rulers united India is just ignorant.

although people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Dayananda, and Swami Shradhhanad are said to be the progenitors of modern RSS etc. But the real work was done by the Muslim rulers.

Again, these people have nothing to do with RSS. Don't know from where you have got this information.

A thought to ponder about, I suggest do some research on "Slavery in India" you'll be surprised by the results.

There is still an unfortunate caste system(not related to Hinduism but more of a stupid cultural thing. we are purging it) in India but the system of slavery belongs to ME and Europe. (buying and selling slaves, etc)

Also, this is what Mahatma Gandhi(Father of India) said after Swami Shraddhanand was killed by Abdul Rashid.

"If you hold dear the memory of Swami Shraddhanandji, you would help in purging the atmosphere of mutual hatred and calumny. You would help in boycotting papers which foment hatred and spread misrepresentation. I am sure that India would lose nothing if 90 per cent of the papers were to cease today. . . Now you will perhaps understand why I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swamiji's murder. Guilty indeed are all those who excited feelings of hatred against one another. For us Hindus the Gita enjoins on us the lesson of equi-mindedness; we are to cherish the same feelings towards a learned Brahman as towards a chandala, a dog, a cow or an elephant."

 

[padamchen]

Janmana jayate shudrah
Samskarad dvija ucyate
Vedapathi bhaved viprah
Brahma janati brahmanah

Meaning,

One is a Shudra by birth
By observing Sanskara one becomes a Dvija
By studying the Vedas one becomes a Vipra
One who knows Brahman is a Brahmana


In short, anyone who takes Deeksha is twice born. Deeksha itself can be in may forms. From upanayana to simply chanting a mantra specific number of times.


Sanskara / Samskara means consciously joining your action with the divine. One becomes a Hindu by doing so.

There are 48 Samskara mentioned in the scriptures.

Garbha daana, Pumsavana, Seemontonnayana, Jaata Karma,Naama karana, Anna praashana, Choula, Upanayana, Four Veda Vrataas, Snaataka, Saha dharma charini samyoga; Pancha yajnaanushthaana viz. of Deva-Pitru-Manushya-Bhuta- Braahma; Ashtakaa paarvana, Shraaddha, Shravani, Agrahaayani, Chaitri and Ashviyuji being Seven Paaka Yajnas; Seven Haviryajnas viz. Agnyaadheya, Agni hotra, Darsha purna momths, Agraayana, Chaturmaasya, nirudha, pashubandha and Soatramani; and Seven Somas viz. Agnishtoma, Atyagnishtoma, Ukthya, Shodashi,Vaajapeya, Atiraatra and Aapteya.


These are basic Karma (actions) that a person performs and consciously linking them to devine makes one a Hindu. The "how to do that" is where Deeksha comes in or where study of the scripture or a Guru/ Acharya comes in.

So you are in agreement with @Bagheera that someone of non Hindu blood can become a Hindu in his current lifetime?

This is fascinating and goes against everything I thought I believed in about Hinduism.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Andhadhun]

So you are in agreement with @Bagheera that someone of non Hindu blood can become a Hindu in his current lifetime?

This is fascinating and goes against everything I thought I believed in about Hinduism.

Cheers, Doc

How is "blood" relevant in Hinduism ?

MahaBali was a Daitya and the author of the Surya Siddhanta was a Danava called Mayasur.

All are children of Rishi Kashyap.

 

[Nilgiri]

The Britishers could do it though.

I disagree. To me a genuine national political unity is very different to colonization. In fact almost an antithesis to it.

Depends again how we are defining a nation...and what unity is etc.

 

[Nilgiri]

How is "blood" relevant in Hinduism ?

MahaBali was a Daitya and the author of the Surya Siddhanta was a Danava called Mayasur.

All are children of Rishi Kashyap.

There is a basic problem that I was referring to earlier in the thread somewhere. People do not actually study the whole of "Hinduism" at the depth and clarity it requires. Rather they filter what is needed and what seems convenient.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

I disagree. To me a genuine national political unity is very different to colonization. In fact almost an antithesis to it.

Yep. But what I'm going towards is 'having control over India.'

Depends again how we are defining a nation...and what unity is etc.

Yeah. See above.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Rather they filter what is needed and what seems convenient.

Filtering needs to be done for every religion. Take the good things, leave out the bad things. But people tend to keep religion on some kind of an immovable pedestal (the Abrahamics especially but even the Dharmics).

 

[padamchen]

All are children of Rishi Kashyap.

If all have the same father then they are pretty much of the same blood.

And if blood means nothing to Hindus then you probably agree that Hindus today are an admixture if the collision of different racial groups.

And if blood means nothing then what is gotra and varana?

You are confusing me ....

Cheers, Doc

 

[Andhadhun]

There is a basic problem that I was referring to earlier in the thread somewhere. People do not actually study the whole of "Hinduism" at the depth and clarity it requires. Rather they filter what is needed and what seems convenient.

People don't study Hinduism because Hinduism is NOT TAUGHT in "secular" India.

The state continued with the British policy of actively destroying the ancient Hindu practices, institutions and education.

Madrassas OTOH teach the quran day in and day out.

In the absence of any such structure basic dharmic education for Hindus, most Hindus go to Wikipedia to understand Hinduism. Especially since teaching Sanskrit is not "secular" either.

So who's to blame ?

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

People don't study Hinduism because Hinduism is NOT TAUGHT in "secular" India.

Doesn't need to be taught as a compulsory subject. Of course, if students want to study, that should be an optional subject but not compulsory.

 

[Andhadhun]

If all have the same father then they are pretty much of the same blood.

And if blood means nothing to Hindus then you probably agree that Hindus today are an admixture if the collision of different racial groups.

And if blood means nothing then what is gotra and varana?

You are confusing me ....

Cheers, Doc

Gotra is "school of thought".

And those taught and following a specific school of hindu taught form their own Gotra.

With the destruction of all Hindu institutions of learning, Gotra became stuck into a region or jaati.

Varna OTOH is CHOICE. Usually based on your "guna" or Nature.

So someone aggressive becomes a kshtirya and someone who seeks knowledge choose to become a brahmin. Just some basic e.g.

 

[Andhadhun]

Doesn't need to be taught as a compulsory subject. Of course, if students want to study, that should be an optional subject but not compulsory.

How can anything be taught "compulsory" ? There are plenty of students who fail basic maths too even if it is compulsory.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

How can anything be taught "compulsory" ? There are plenty of students who fail basic maths too even if it is compulsory.

You didn't get my argument. I'm saying it should not be forced on the students.

Yes some students fail Maths even if it's compulsory. That's not the point.