Islam and Hinduism

Dear Bharatiya,

I think, its of no use to return replies after replies and not focusing on the main theme of learning about Hinduism. So, instead of replying you through sentence by sentence, I would simply focus on few of the questions that some how or the other I couldn't understand from your previous posts. They are:

1. What is the concept of Brahma or other similar gods or dieties in hinduism and what is their source of orgin in your scriptures?

2. Why do you think Varna (caste system as you explained in your earlier postings) was valid in those times? How do you abolish it (I mean how would you bring a social change among people if it is still in your scriptures? I think, one can argue that since 90% population already don't know about their scripture, so it would be relatively easy to push the varna system out of society. But then what about the opposing forces (forget about exploitation but Varna system itself) who would like to let it prevail? won't they bring in these scriptures to resist against these social changes? If you thing they would not, then why not?

3. Why have you left all your vedas aside and just picked up Gita as the only reference for all your doctrines? Does Gita also provide the philosopy about Brahman the way you have shown us? I don't think it was referenced from this book. So aren't you limiting your doctrine only from one book and for what reasons? Due to their contents or due their authenticity or what?

4. How do you differentiate between the human history (I mean humanly observable by those other than the objects of the history themselves) and the kind of history (Itihasa) you narrated with regard to a boy and the angel of death? Is there any seperate terms that you use to identify or what? I am asking this so that in our future discussions, we should be specific in our use of terminolgy and not confuse one with the other and thus avoid wasting of long explanations to understand the actual phenomena.

I think for now, we should remain focus on these issues only. Anyhow if you want to add or delete anything, you may go ahead.

Dear Ahmad,

Hope you are doing well.

Let me tell you some basic things.

1. We believe in transmigration of Soul.  Its like we have a body, a mind and a Soul.  Mind is the conscious part of our being.  But mind in itself is not conscious.  The consciousness comes from the Soul.  When the body dies, the consciousness does not die.  It is here itself until it finds another body(definitely not a dead body).  Another body does not mean a full grown body.  It is a sperm.  And the consciousness will be born again.  This continues until we perfectly know the Reality.  That means that this continues till the mind recognizes the Truth.

2. Coming to Soul, it is Brahman itself.  When we talk about a person, we call it Atman(Soul) and when we talk taking everyone into account, then we call Brahman.  This means that deep inside we all are one.  What makes us differnt are our minds(not Souls).  This is hard to understand and digest.

       Now the question asked by everyone is, why don't we remember our past lives?  This is a question every thinking person asks.  But then we don't totally remember our babyhood, does that mean we were not babies?  Of course this answer does not satisfy many.  But we have ample proof about past lives.  The hunches we get, the deja vus we encounter, the impulses we get to do a certain action etc.  The fears we have can be traced to our past lives and can be eradicated!  Our habits can also be traced to our past lives.  Even you and I can remember past lives by ourselves or with the help of a hypnotist.
Just google "Past Life Regression Therapy" and you will get hordes of sites.

You believe that we are born with certain habits, fears or are born rich or poor etc. because Allah has created us in that way.  What you believe, so be it.  I have said what we believe and I believe it to be true(I have my own beliefs, I believe my late grandpa is always with me).

3. We believe that everything is possible.  We can even separate our body and mind.  Of course we do it whenever we sleep.  As you live in America, you may be finding so many institutes there which teach mind control.  Mind can do everything the physical body can do.  The power of the mind depends on the belief one has.  Belief coupled with concentration one can accomplish anything.  Everyone(I mean EVERYONE) is capable of doing miracles.  When you control your mind, coincidences seem to multiply, miracles seem to be a daily affair.

Let me answer your questions one by one.  I am using my own order.

AhmadJoyia wrote: 3. Why have you left all your vedas aside and just picked up Gita as the only reference for all your doctrines? Does Gita also provide the philosopy about Brahman the way you have shown us? I don't think it was referenced from this book. So aren't you limiting your doctrine only from one book and for what reasons? Due to their contents or due their authenticity or what?

Let me answer the above question first.

Vedas contain practices which are for material gains.  They also contain secular pursuits like science(physics, chemistry, metallurgy, astronomy etc.), mathematics, medicine etc.  They also contain practices relating to our religion.  They contain a few verses about Brahman, but mostly contain secular pursuits.

Most of the knowledge relating to knowing the Truth is in the Upanishads.  Upanishads contain questions and answers.  The questions are asked by the pupils and answered by their masters.  The names of the teachers and the pupils are also given.  They were afterwards compiled by Vyasa.  What we don't know is who wrote and preserved them until Vyas.  And thats not a big issue anyway.  We can find it without much effort.

Coming to Bagavad Gita,  it was said in the year 3137 BC by Sri Krishna who was 89 years old then.  It was said to his friend(brother-in-law) Arjuna.  And Bagavad Gita was also written down by Vyasa.  Whatever is written in the Upanishads(and some parts of Vedas) was said by Sri Krishna to Arjuna.  The difference being, Upanishads are in more detail and are structured.

As you know, we do not have all of the Upanishads.  But we have the whole of Bagavad Gita.  And Bagavad Gita is more easy to understand than the Upanishads.  So we consider Bagavad Gita as our holy book.

Gita provides a lot more and easy to understand philosophy about Brahman.  Why do you think that Brahman is not referenced in the Gita?  You haven't read the Gita(even if you read, I know you will not understand it:)).

And I am not at all limiting our doctrine whatsoever.

Whatever is left with us is authentic.  So their is no question of authenticity.

I refered Gita because it contains everything which is in the Upanishads and it even contains a lot more.

Quote: 4. How do you differentiate between the human history (I mean humanly observable by those other than the objects of the history themselves) and the kind of history (Itihasa) you narrated with regard to a boy and the angel of death? Is there any seperate terms that you use to identify or what? I am asking this so that in our future discussions, we should be specific in our use of terminolgy and not confuse one with the other and thus avoid wasting of long explanations to understand the actual phenomena.

As I have said, Itihasa means history.

Our civilization is the oldest of all(now don't ask me to prove this, though I have proof for it, I don't want to prove anything) civilizations.  We had well planned cities, had all the means of travel, we had written languages etc.  What people of the world are recognizing now is that we have had the knowledge of Yoga.

As I have said earlier, we knew a lot of things about the workings of the mind and body.  As Krishna himself says about Yoga in Gita as "the Mighty Art has lost in time".

Now as few people(outside India) know about such things, they feel that they are fables, mythological stories etc.

We also have fables and mythological stories.

But what are categorized as Itihasas come under history(whether you believe it or not).

As we all know, past becomes history, history becomes legend, legend becomes a myth.

Quote: 2. Why do you think Varna (caste system as you explained in your earlier postings) was valid in those times? How do you abolish it (I mean how would you bring a social change among people if it is still in your scriptures? I think, one can argue that since 90% population already don't know about their scripture, so it would be relatively easy to push the varna system out of society. But then what about the opposing forces (forget about exploitation but Varna system itself) who would like to let it prevail? won't they bring in these scriptures to resist against these social changes? If you thing they would not, then why not?

About the Varna system, I have explained it a lot of times and I will do this time in detail.

We believe that everyone(everything) is born for a purpose.  That purpose is known as swadharma.  A unit has its swadharma, a society has its swadharma, a state has its swadharma and a country has its swadharma(the swadharma of Bharat is Spirituality).  When a baby is born, according to its time of birth, its swadharma is given by the priests according to the position of planets at the time of birth(you may not understand this and may feel that this is a superstition).  That used to be right a long time ago as the priests were exact in their predictions.

So according to their swadharma the society was divided into four categories.  1. Brahmins 2. Kshatriyas 3. Vyshyas 4. Sudras.
These are mostly misspelt, misinterpreted and misunderstood.

This does not signify any hierarchy.

The swadharma of Brahmins was to look after all the auspicious affairs of the state.  Kshatriyas are soldiers and used to protect the country.  Vyshyas are bussinessmen who also used to travel from one country to another.  Sudras used to be the farmers, tailors etc.

So according to our swadharma at our birth we were given the appropriate education.  This was not a strict code.  If my swadharma was given to be a soldier and I do not want to be a soldier when I grow up, then its my wish.

And generally, Brahmins descendents used to do what their ancestors used to do.  Similarly the others.  But whatever you choose as swadharma, we have to do accordingly.
Like I want to be a soldier then I should not run away from the battlefield.  Its considered to cause disgrace to oneself and family.  Similarly others.

And in the scriptures it is written that we should follow our swadharma to express ourselves most.  Every person is unique so is his swadharma.  Nowhere it is written that Brahmins are the higher caste or any such thing.

So there will be no kind of opposition whatsoever.  And few follow it now.  Now 'caste system' is used as a way for political gains.  And I am not going to discuss about politics now.

Though I did not explain about Varna system as best as I could, I hope you will understand it.  If you have any questions you can ask me.

Quote: 1. What is the concept of Brahma or other similar gods or dieties in hinduism and what is their source of orgin in your scriptures?

As I have said earlier, answer to this question is toooooooooooo lengthy to explain here.

Everything has its source in Brahman so thats the only thing everyone is interested in.  We don't believe that Brahman created everything at a point of time(actually we ourselves are Brahman, remember Soul, Atman?).  Time itself does not exist for Brahman. 

There is a lot to explain about our concept of heaven and hell and a lot more.  Suffice that they are angels(and we too can become angels, as I have said, its a matter of choice).

Peace and Love.

Dear Bharattiya

 What can you tell us about the historicity of "Law of Manu" in hinduism? Though I have tried to go over through some of its chapters, but again, they were so much confusing that I thought to sought your help in understanding them. Here are some of the main points from an english translation of the book of "Laws of Manu" that has confused me. Can you explain the difficulties (hope the lines from the book shall present the difficulty itself) that I see in it or its just a baised translation. This is from Chapter 3 of this book

"

15. Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

16. According to Atri and to (Gautama) the son of Utathya, he who weds a Sudra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sudra female, alone).

17. A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

18. The manes and the gods will not eat the (offerings) of that man who performs the rites in honour of the gods, of the manes, and of guests chiefly with a (Sudra wife's) assistance, and such (a man) will not go to heaven.

19. For him who drinks the moisture of a Sudra's lips, who is tainted by her breath, and who begets a son on her, no expiation is prescribed."

Here is the reference for the source of this information.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu03.htm

Kindly let me also know if you think tht this is not an authentic source for the translation of this book and why would you think so?

Similarly once I went on to read few chapters of this book I got amazingly confused with the kind of science described in it. For example here is another statement from the same chapter 3 of this book.

"48. On the even nights sons are conceived and daughters on the uneven ones; hence a man who desires to have sons should approach his wife in due season on the even (nights)."

Is that the same kind of science that you were refering to in some of your posts about hindu scriptures? Its really strange that you, with your own open mind and rationale thinking, still believe in this kind of stuff? I hope you would not question my sincerety of understanding your scriptures from a baised website with vested interests. I am open to your replies and need you to guide us to any translation of this book of "Laws of Manu" that could bring translation other than presented above.

Ofcourse, the book is not over yet and I can't conclude anything out of these few verses. Maybe some further reading into the book may provide better understanding of these few troublesome statements. Till then, I hope to hear something from you or from any one who know the truth other than what has been presented here.  

 

 

I think, Bro Bharatiya has gone to take a rebirth. Till then we must wait for him.